On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 02:37:19 +0100, "Matthew Garrett" <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said: > On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 01:23:08PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > > > case ACPI_NOTIFY_EJECT_REQUEST: > > ata_ehi_push_desc(ehi, "ACPI event"); > > - > > - if (!is_dock_event) > > - break; > > - > > - /* undock event - immediate unplug */ > > ata_acpi_detach_device(ap, dev); > > Ok, just to check that I've understood the other patches - this will > only be called if the device has actually been removed, and not if you > merely get an EJECT_REQUEST, right? An EJECT_REQUEST from a bay device > should always just signal userspace, and never actually cause the device > to be deleted. I don't really like the way that you're remapping event That's my doubt as well. We can't have unconditional ejects of either docks or bays on hardware that allows you to refuse to eject if something is wrong, that choice belongs to USERSPACE, so the ejects must not be unconditional. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- 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
