On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:39:26PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 22:35, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:29:23PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > > > >> I guess, the "idle_since" file could be made poll()able, and throw an > >> event when the idle time is re-set to 0, so the value checking needs > >> only to happen as long we wait for the disk to become idle. As long as > >> it's busy anyway, the rare wakeups should not matter much. :) > > > > That'd be a userspace wakeup every time something gets submitted to the > > block device, which sounds far from ideal... > > No, you would only poll() when you reached the timeout and the disk > entered the idle state. This can not happen more frequently than the > timeout itself. I don't understand. idle_since would be reset on every access to the block device. The alternative is to generate an event when the disk goes idle, but that goes back to requiring a timer in the kernel... -- 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
