From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [patch 2/4] Expose Power Management Policy option to users Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:24:44 +0900 Message-ID: <46AFFCFC.7020902@gmail.com> References: <20070705194909.337398431@intel.com> <20070705130518.135e4e3c.kristen.c.accardi@intel.com> <46AE12B6.6090408@garzik.org> <46AED656.8070407@gmail.com> <20070731093014.db9e0734.kristen.c.accardi@intel.com> <46AF794F.1020107@gmail.com> <20070731125849.501443c1.kristen.c.accardi@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.177]:23702 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752196AbXHADZ5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:25:57 -0400 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id v27so74814wah for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:25:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20070731125849.501443c1.kristen.c.accardi@intel.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Kristen Carlson Accardi Cc: Jeff Garzik , James.Bottomley@steeleye.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, edwintorok@gmail.com, axboe@kernel.dk Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote: >> I don't think the interface you're suggesting is a good one. Do you? > > I think if it's applicable to SCSI at all it is fine. If it is not, then > I think we need to make do with the interface we are given. I do not think > we should hold up a feature for libata sysfs integration. Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here and leave the decision to James and Jeff. >>> I can assert that I think ALPM is a good idea, >>> because I've never had a report of it causing problems. Windows has >>> been using this feature for a very long time - and you have to admit that >>> they have a pretty large market share. Nobody is complaining about ALPM >>> increasing device malfunction, so unless you have proof it seems insane >>> to nak due to this. >> Is ALPM enabled by default? How do they deal with the performance >> degradation? > > I believe so, but I'm obviously not privvy to their implementation details. It would be *really* great if we can find more about how they do it. How and when it's enabled and on which systems. Is it possible to find this out? -- tejun