From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:12:55 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Add support for uevents on block device idle Message-Id: <20091123141255.GA9889@srcf.ucam.org> List-Id: References: <1258474180.16176.62.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091117185742.GA19829@srcf.ucam.org> <20091118194053.GB12944@srcf.ucam.org> <20091118195342.GA13627@srcf.ucam.org> <20091118200712.GA14026@srcf.ucam.org> <20091122233749.GA9699@ucw.cz> In-Reply-To: <20091122233749.GA9699@ucw.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Pavel Machek Cc: Kay Sievers , David Zeuthen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk, linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:37:49AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Wed 2009-11-18 20:07:12, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 09:03:21PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > > > > > Sure, but what's wrong with reading that file every 50 seconds? Almost > > > all boxes poll for media changes of optical drives and usb card > > > readers anyway, so it's not that we are not doing stuff like this > > > already. > > > > We poll for media because there's no event-based way of avoiding it - in > > this case there is. > > ...when you add overhead to every disk operation. I'd say that polling > once in 50 seconds is preferable to that. Yeah, but 50 seconds isn't the timescale we're talking about here. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org