From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758050AbXHAD0N (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:26:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752467AbXHADZ4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:25:56 -0400 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.185]:45235 "EHLO rv-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752280AbXHADZ4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:25:56 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=B6zdrZl6tWz16+mNI3U4fSX6FiLgBIznzswSjwdawQ+9zETaoHPAmiBZEdh2vwtkptXm4awjt/WcTbMKrttAvSv7LhyGutwjGi0+XGlK2dgGCsvMMI/+b3HFi1xiKLnJ5HJOvzuLTYK2kANlI9YVKNjDPNW4ARJjVBwPNS6JJmE= Message-ID: <46AFFCFC.7020902@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:24:44 +0900 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070716) MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Subject: Re: [patch 2/4] Expose Power Management Policy option to users 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> In-Reply-To: <20070731125849.501443c1.kristen.c.accardi@intel.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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