From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755952AbYIQVvT (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:51:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753592AbYIQVvF (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:51:05 -0400 Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:43940 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753193AbYIQVvC (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:51:02 -0400 Message-ID: <48D17BBE.5020807@garzik.org> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:50:54 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080723) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" CC: Tejun Heo , ACPI Devel Maling List , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Renninger , Robert Hancock , LKML , Frans Pop , Maciej Rutecki , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] SATA: Blacklist systems that spin off disks during ACPI power off References: <200808290002.55026.rjw@sisk.pl> <48C50EA4.2020700@gmail.com> <48CC7542.3010603@garzik.org> <200809150200.57055.rjw@sisk.pl> In-Reply-To: <200809150200.57055.rjw@sisk.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -4.4 (----) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.2.5 on srv5.dvmed.net summary: Content analysis details: (-4.4 points, 5.0 required) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday, 14 of September 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> Tejun Heo wrote: >>> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>> SATA: Blacklist systems that spin off disks during ACPI power off >>>> >>>> Some notebooks from HP have the problem that their BIOSes attempt to >>>> spin down hard drives before entering ACPI system states S4 and S5. >>>> This leads to a yo-yo effect during system power-off shutdown and the >>>> last phase of hibernation when the disk is first spun down by the >>>> kernel and then almost immediately turned on and off by the BIOS. >>>> This, in turn, may result in shortening the disk's life times. >>>> >>>> To prevent this from happening we can blacklist the affected systems >>>> using DMI information. However, only the on-board controlles should >>>> be blacklisted and their PCI slot numbers can be used for this >>>> purpose. Unfortunately the existing interface for checking DMI >>>> information of the system is not very convenient for this purpose, >>>> because to use it, we would have to define special callback functions >>>> or create a separate struct dmi_system_id table for each blacklisted >>>> system. >>>> >>>> To overcome this difficulty introduce a new function >>>> dmi_first_match() returning a pointer to the first entry in an array >>>> of struct dmi_system_id elements that matches the system DMI >>>> information. Then, we can use this pointer to access the entry's >>>> .driver_data field containing the additional information, such as >>>> the PCI slot number, allowing us to do the desired blacklisting. >>>> >>>> Introduce a new libata flag ATA_FLAG_NO_POWEROFF_SPINDOWN that, if >>>> set, will prevent disks from being spun off during system power off >>>> and hibernation (to handle the hibernation case we need a new system >>>> state SYSTEM_HIBERNATE_ENTER that can be checked against by libata, >>>> in analogy with SYSTEM_POWER_OFF). Use dmi_first_match() to set this >>>> flag for some systems affected by the problem described above (HP nx6325, >>>> HP nx6310, HP 2510p). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki >>> libata part looks good to me but I think it would be better to >>> separate out DMI changes into a separate patch. >> Did these changes ever get separated out? > > I only have the 'combo' patch if that's what you're asking about. [The latest > version is at http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=17702&action=view] > > Still, I can easily split the patch, although in that case the reason for the > DMI changes won't be very clear without a reference to the SATA changes IMO. That's the nature of every single API change -- you have the change, and then you have the users. Respectfully, please split up the patch as requested, into DMI subsystem and ata subsystem pieces. Re-reviewing the patch, I would even think that you should split out the kernel/power/disk and linux/kernel.h changes as well. Jeff