From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: 2.6.25 semantic change in bay handling? Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 10:39:25 +0100 Message-ID: <20080506093925.GB12469@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20080505223357.GA2839@srcf.ucam.org> <20080506081347.GA8688@homac> <20080506082110.GA10355@srcf.ucam.org> <48201987.4020009@gmail.com> <20080506084625.GA10817@srcf.ucam.org> <20080506092935.GC4378@homac> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mjg.x.mythic-beasts.com ([93.93.128.6]:40522 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754292AbYEFJje (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2008 05:39:34 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080506092935.GC4378@homac> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Garzik On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 11:29:35AM +0200, Holger Macht wrote: > Right, so you never can rely on receiving a BAY_EVENT. Why not just > disregard this case and looking for a common solution? Oh, I agree - we need to solve this in any case. But for hardware where there is a separate request event before the device is pulled, users already have scripts that prompt them to unmount hardware. These worked in <2.6.25, but they're broken now. It'd be nice to get them working again. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org