From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762229AbYETIrP (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2008 04:47:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757787AbYETIq6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2008 04:46:58 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:53921 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754126AbYETIq4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2008 04:46:56 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 10:49:29 +0200 From: Holger Macht To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Tejun Heo , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Garzik , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fixups to ATA ACPI hotplug Message-ID: <20080520084928.GA2959@homac> Mail-Followup-To: Matthew Garrett , Tejun Heo , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Garzik , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20080505223357.GA2839@srcf.ucam.org> <20080506081347.GA8688@homac> <20080506082110.GA10355@srcf.ucam.org> <48201987.4020009@gmail.com> <20080506092653.GB4378@homac> <20080506093628.GA12469@srcf.ucam.org> <20080519162934.GA15623@srcf.ucam.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080519162934.GA15623@srcf.ucam.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon 19. May - 17:29:34, Matthew Garrett wrote: > The libata-acpi.c code currently accepts hotplug messages from both the > port and the device. This does not match the behaviour of the bay > driver, and may result in confusion when two hotplug requests are > received for the same device. This patch limits the hotplug notification > to removable ACPI devices, which in turn allows it to use the _STA > method to determine whether the device has been removed or inserted. > On removal, devices are marked as detached. On insertion, a hotplug scan > is started. This should avoid lockups caused by the ata layer attempting > to scan devices which have been removed. The uevent sending is moved > outside the spinlock in order to avoid a warning generated by it firing > when interrupts are disabled. > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett > > --- > > Holger, I'm pretty sure that this deals with the docking station removal > case, but don't have the hardware to test. If EJECT_REQUEST is genuinely I tried it, it doesn't. Undock --> some userspace app accesses the device --> hard lockup > the only notification we receive (ie, no BUS_CHECK or DEVICE_CHECK) then > we'll need to add a separate callback for docking. Yes, see my patch. Regards, Holger