From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 09/11] block: add a new interface to block events Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:51:21 -0700 Message-ID: <20121031215121.GC2945@htj.dyndns.org> References: <1351501298-3716-1-git-send-email-aaron.lu@intel.com> <1351501298-3716-10-git-send-email-aaron.lu@intel.com> <20121029153536.GL5171@htj.dyndns.org> <508F7BF1.1040009@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <508F7BF1.1040009@intel.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Aaron Lu Cc: James Bottomley , Jeff Garzik , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Alan Stern , Oliver Neukum , Jeff Wu , Aaron Lu , Shane Huang , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 03:04:17PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: > > check_event() can retry. Just add a per-sr mutex which is try-locked > > by sr_block_check_events() and grab it when entering zero power. > > Good suggestion. I didn't think about solving it this way. > > Many people suggest me that ZPODD is pure SATA/ACPI stuff, and should > not pollute sr driver, so I was trying hard not to touch sr while > preparing these patches, unless there is no other choice(like the > blocking event interface). > > So I'm not sure if your suggestion is the way to go. > > James, what do you think? Is it OK if I add a mutex into the scsi_cd > structure to do this? Of course I'll define this only under > CONFIG_SATA_ZPODD. I don't think what James' and my suggestions are that different. Just silence check_event() while zpodd is kicked in somehow. There's no reason to synchronize across multiple subsystems. Thanks. -- tejun