From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: Register for dock events when the drive is inside a dock station Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:05:53 +0900 Message-ID: <47C6B1B1.2040602@gmail.com> References: <20080214124048.GB9708@homac.suse.de> <20080214125615.GD9708@homac.suse.de> <47BC5F44.605@garzik.org> <20080221115305.GB5032@homac.suse.de> <47BE26A0.2040708@gmail.com> <20080226101551.GB10721@homac.suse.de> <47C6804A.50705@gmail.com> <20080228110927.GA5745@homac.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.231]:49623 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755395AbYB1NGD (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:06:03 -0500 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id c48so5060770wra.23 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:06:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20080228110927.GA5745@homac.suse.de> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo , Jeff Garzik , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Kristen Carlson Accardi Holger Macht wrote: > On Thu 28. Feb - 18:35:06, Tejun Heo wrote: >> Holger Macht wrote: >>> The hotplug handler is only called if the device is actually inside the >>> dock station. If it is not, nothing will happen. I hope that I got your >>> question right? >> Yes, right. >> >>> However, if this would be helpful, it would be easy to add something like >>> a am_I_on_dock_station?(...) function to the dock driver. >> Hmm.. as long as the event is only delivered when the device is actually >> connected behind dock, I think it's okay. > > The dock driver also export a is_dock_device(acpi_handle) function, which > could be used to make more fine-grained decisions, but it shouldn't be > needed here. > >> Does the attached patch fix the previous undock problem? It now >> explicitly tells libata EH to detach the notified devices on >> EJECT_REQUEST and wait for EH to complete such that control is returned >> to ACPI after all notified devices are actually detached. > > No it does not. Apparently, it freezes faster (from 1 second down to > immediately). Before, it just froze when someone (in this case HAL) tried > to access the device. The "echo 1 > undock" call does not even return, so > it might have introduced another problem. The code should be in generally right direction. Can you be persuaded into tracking down what's going on? Thanks. -- tejun