From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 07/10] block: add a new interface to block events Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:14:40 -0800 Message-ID: <20121112191440.GF5560@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <1352443922-13734-1-git-send-email-aaron.lu@intel.com> <1352443922-13734-8-git-send-email-aaron.lu@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-da0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:43463 "EHLO mail-da0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752219Ab2KLTOq (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:14:46 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1352443922-13734-8-git-send-email-aaron.lu@intel.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Aaron Lu Cc: Jeff Garzik , James Bottomley , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Alan Stern , Jeff Wu , Aaron Lu , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 02:51:59PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: > A new interface to block disk events is added, this interface is > meant to eliminate a race between PM runtime callback and disk events > checking. > > Suppose the following device tree: > device_sata_port (the parent) > device_ODD (the child) Weren't you gonna do something different about this? I mean, if sr knows that autopm kicked in, it can simply tell the block layer that nothing is going on. Wouldn't that be simpler? Thanks. -- tejun