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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
