From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: Laptop shock detection and harddisk protection Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 21:51:03 +0200 Message-ID: <20080817195103.GD4043@ucw.cz> References: <48C7FCEE.8060404@kernel.org> <41840b750809110908o54a61f55w7b1b9793abf55634@mail.gmail.com> <48C948A6.3080404@kernel.org> <877i9ipi56.fsf@denkblock.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:3605 "EHLO spitz.ucw.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753701AbYIQO0K (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:26:10 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <877i9ipi56.fsf@denkblock.local> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Elias Oltmanns Cc: Tejun Heo , Shem Multinymous , Thomas Renninger , Linux Kernel Mailing List , IDE/ATA development list Hi! > Short of a satisfying proposition regarding the questions raised, I just > want to add two things that would be nice to solve in the future one way > or another and should perhaps be taken into consideration from the > beginning: > > 1. Disable polling completely when it isn't required: once the hd has > spun down, there is no need to keep polling the sensors at all. Only > when the first request requiring the hd to spin up arrives, the > kernel needs to hold back for a short while to gather enough data > from the sensors, so shock protection is up and running again. hdparm can already tell if disk is spinning or not. As userland is polling, already, that may be enough? > 2. Make shock protection interact nicely with suspend operations: > currently, we are out of luck if anything should happen after > processes have been frozen. This is particularly unfortunatel in the > case of s2disk. I'd say that s2disk is similar to early boot... no protection there. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html