From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
To: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
Cc: tejun@gmail.com, Holger Macht <hmacht@suse.de>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
Subject: 2.6.25 semantic change in bay handling?
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 23:33:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080505223357.GA2839@srcf.ucam.org> (raw)
48feb3c419508487becfb9ea3afcc54c3eac6d80 appears to flag a device as
detached if an acpi eject request is received. In 2.6.24 and earlier, an
eject request merely sent an event to userland which could then cleanly
unmount the device and let the user know when it was safe to remove the
drive. Removing the device would then send another acpi request that
triggered the actual hotplug and bus rescan.
This seems like a regression - it's no longer possible to ensure that a
bay device is cleanly unmounted. Was this really the desired behaviour?
It should be noted that not all hardware sends the eject request at all
(Thinkpads do, but Dell and HP laptops don't), so we can't depend on
receiving this when dealing with a bay event.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
next reply other threads:[~2008-05-05 22:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-05 22:33 Matthew Garrett [this message]
2008-05-06 8:13 ` 2.6.25 semantic change in bay handling? Holger Macht
2008-05-06 8:21 ` Matthew Garrett
2008-05-06 8:40 ` Tejun Heo
2008-05-06 8:46 ` Matthew Garrett
2008-05-06 8:53 ` Tejun Heo
2008-05-06 9:17 ` Matthew Garrett
2008-05-06 11:21 ` Holger Macht
2008-05-06 11:31 ` Matthew Garrett
2008-05-06 17:27 ` Holger Macht
2008-05-06 17:48 ` Matthew Garrett
2008-05-06 18:36 ` Holger Macht
2008-05-06 18:48 ` Matthew Garrett
2008-05-06 22:06 ` Holger Macht
2008-05-06 9:29 ` Holger Macht
2008-05-06 9:39 ` Matthew Garrett
2008-05-06 9:26 ` Holger Macht
2008-05-06 9:36 ` Matthew Garrett
2008-05-19 16:29 ` [PATCH] Fixups to ATA ACPI hotplug Matthew Garrett
2008-05-20 7:44 ` Holger Macht
2008-05-20 10:20 ` Matthew Garrett
2008-05-20 13:18 ` Holger Macht
2008-05-20 13:22 ` Matthew Garrett
2008-05-20 13:58 ` Holger Macht
2008-05-20 14:00 ` Matthew Garrett
2008-05-21 22:26 ` Andrew Morton
2008-05-20 8:49 ` Holger Macht
2008-05-06 8:40 ` 2.6.25 semantic change in bay handling? Holger Macht
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080505223357.GA2839@srcf.ucam.org \
--to=mjg59@srcf.ucam.org \
--cc=hmacht@suse.de \
--cc=jeff@garzik.org \
--cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tejun@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).