From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: Status of storage autosuspend Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:20:43 -0800 Message-ID: <20080220062043.GA22308@kroah.com> References: <20080218222014.GB31201@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Stern Cc: Pavel Machek , kernel list , Linux-pm mailing list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:19:11PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > Should we ignore this issue and submit the patches anyway? > > > > I think you should. "Easy" (and clean) solution to that issue is to > > just return -EPERM from SG_IOCTL if autosuspend is configured in ;-). > > :-) > > Okay, I'll update the patches to 2.6.25-rc2 and submit them in a few > days. (Actually the SCSI patch has to go in first and the usb-storage > patch afterward, which will probably cause it to be delayed one kernel > version. I don't know any good way to handle these cross-subsystem > updates...) Push the usb-storage one through the scsi tree as well. The subsystem maintainers handle this kind of thing all the time (for example, a sysfs feature is about to go in through the ocfs tree for this very reason.) thanks, greg k-h