From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: 2.6.25 semantic change in bay handling? Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 23:33:57 +0100 Message-ID: <20080505223357.GA2839@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mjg.x.mythic-beasts.com ([93.93.128.6]:33824 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754491AbYEEWeL (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2008 18:34:11 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Cc: tejun@gmail.com, Holger Macht , Jeff Garzik 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