From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: RFC: ACPI/scsi/libata integration and hotswap Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 11:55:11 +0000 Message-ID: <20051209115511.GA25842@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20051208134438.GA13507@infradead.org> <1134062330.1732.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43989B00.5040503@pobox.com> <20051208133144.0f39cb37.randy_d_dunlap@linux.intel.com> <1134121522.27633.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20051209103937.GE26185@suse.de> <1134125145.27633.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43996A26.8060700@pobox.com> <1134128127.27633.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20051209114641.GH26185@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051209114641.GH26185@suse.de> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: Erik Slagter , Jeff Garzik , Randy Dunlap , hch@infradead.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 12:46:42PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Fri, Dec 09 2005, Erik Slagter wrote: > > I case this (still) isn't clear, I am addressing the attitude of "It's > > ACPI so it's not going to be used, period". > > The problem seems to be that you are misunderstanding the 'attitude', > which was mainly based on the initial patch sent out which stuffs acpi > directly in everywhere. That seems to be a good trigger for curt/direct > replies. I was just following the example set by the ide acpi suspend/resume patch, which people didn't seem to object to nearly as much. I guess IDE's such a hack anyway that people aren't as worried :) I'll try produce a patch that just inserts platform-independent code into scsi around the start of next week. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org