From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] scsi: Allow hosts to be flagged as hotpluggable Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:44:39 +0100 Message-ID: <20090716144439.GA14345@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1247701438-18266-1-git-send-email-mjg@redhat.com> <4A5F3975.70503@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <4A5F3ADE.2040109@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A5F3ADE.2040109@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stefan Richter Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 04:36:14PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote: > Stefan Richter wrote: > > The comment should specify what the actual effects of the flag are. > [...] > > (Is used by power management infrastructure to decide over runtime PM > > policy? I.e. don't enter power states which would prevent the port from > > detecting/ reporting hotplug events?) > > Perhaps the flag should be called differently (keep_ports_powered or > whatever) --- unless you have additional future uses of the flag in mind > which justify the more generic name. Mm. I was actually wondering about that. For instance, laptop bays are hotpluggable but provide notification out of band and so can use ALPM without losing functionality. I'm not sure about "keep_ports_powered", but I'll try to think of something better. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org