On 3/20/07, Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Urk. It is better to either fail the suspend, or to not power down the bay. > > Or to give the user a choice of which he'd rather happen. Hmm... > > Yeah, I think it needs to be configurable. In many cases the right > thing to do is for the user to promise not to swap out bay, and in the > exception case where they do, all of the processes that have files > open on that bay will have to get their fd's revoked. We can try to > make it less likely for there to be data loss, like asking filesystems > that support write_super_lockfs() to quiesce the filesystem before the > suspend, but the assumption should be that users aren't supposed to be > swapping out the bay if they request the suspend code not to > disconnect the filesystem. This is sensical and useful for other devices as well (e.g., USB flash drives). So the interface, and preferably the implementation too, should be generic. Shem ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ ibm-acpi-devel mailing list ibm-acpi-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ibm-acpi-devel
