From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [SCSI] fix media change events for polled devices Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:10:40 -0400 Message-ID: <47E42450.2000104@garzik.org> References: <200803211559.m2LFxPi6017869@hera.kernel.org> <47E3EC67.4050404@garzik.org> <1206124426.24338.20.camel@lov.site> <47E41DD3.2040602@garzik.org> <1206133474.2961.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:54359 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761449AbYCUVKn (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:10:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1206133474.2961.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Kay Sievers , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org James Bottomley wrote: > On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 16:42 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> Kay Sievers wrote: >>> On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 13:12 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: >>>> Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote: >>>>> [SCSI] fix media change events for polled devices >>>>> >>>>> Commit: >>>>> a341cd0f (SCSI: add asynchronous event notification API) >>>>> breaks: >>>>> 285e9670 (sr,sd: send media state change modification events) >>>>> by introducing an event filter, which is removed here, to make >>>>> events, we are depending on, happen again. >>>> By simply reading the code history, it is trivial to verify that this >>>> description is false: >>>> >>>> Commit 285e9670 depends on a341cd0f, so by definition it is 285e9670 -- >>>> or rather the incomplete update of your original patch that resulted in >>>> 285e9670 -- that is broken. >>> It worked fine with Kristen's patches, and that's where it is coming >>> from from. >> Neither her patches nor yours went upstream verbatim at version one. >> You need to look at what happens upstream, not what happened in your >> private testing six months ago. >> >> >>> You mean the read-only sysfs attribute? :) >> I mean the attribute with both 'show' (read) and 'store' (write) >> functions. The perms do need to change, thanks for noticing that bug. > > That's not a bug. Yes, it is. That sysfs node was intended to be writable. > For starters, we have transport classes that provide generic store > methods but can't pass the information on to drivers. For these, we set > the attribute to read only even if there is a store method. Even if > that weren't the case, how do you know which of UGO wants the write > setting? You give it to root, and let userspace change it after that, like we always do. Jeff