On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 15:30, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 03:25:59PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 15:16, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > It could, but it seems a bit of a hack. It'd still also require the >> > timer to be in the kernel, so we might as well expose that to userspace. >> >> Sure, but a userspace configurable policy for an in-kernel disk-idle >> powermanagent sounds fine, compared to a single-subscriber >> userspace-only disk-idle event interface. :) > > Well, we still need to expose this for the access pattern modifying. I > really don't see the issue with the single subscriber being devkit-disks > - none of the operations involved are atomic, so we're inherently racy > here. Single-subscriber event interfaces are usually a no-go for generic infrastructure like this. We still have the unmodified HAL running until it is dead, and this works only because there are no such awkward interfaces. In a few years we will probably have diskfoo replacing dk-disks, and then ... :) Kay -- 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
