On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:06:33PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > That's true, but I think there is a significant difference between > polling every one or two seconds for media changes, and usually one or > two minutes for a disk idle. It's not that we poll in a rather hight > frequency, in an arbitrary interval, and check if some condition is > met. My use cases are on the order of a second. > I still don't think that we should add new event interfaces which are > single-subscriber only, and use global values for a specific user. > What if there will be another independent user for this, which might > want a different timeout? They fight over the trigger value to set in > sysfs? You can trivially multiplex without any additional wakeups. Something like devkit-disks can simply trigger on the lowest requested time and then schedule wakeups for subscribers who want a different timeout. > From my perspective, the once-at-timeout wakeup is more acceptable > than an in-kernel policy setting for a single-subscriber event > interface. I'd be open to it being something for multiple subscribers, though that would add to the complexity in the block code and I'm not sure that's needed. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hotplug" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
