2007/5/15, Tejun Heo <htejun@xxxxxxxxx>:
Yeah, it's a big mess. With this patch applied, what happens is... * If your shutdown(8) does issue STANDBYNOW : you get the big fat warning and kernel won't issue STANDBYNOW. * If your shutdown(8) doesn't issue STANDBYNOW : kernel issues FLUSH CACHE followed by STANDBYNOW and all is well and dandy without any userland modification. I think it isn't too bad. Any better ideas?
Seems good for a transitional period. However, as it appeared evident (and with a bit of luck), probably no distributions are trying to issuing STANDBYNOW after all. Eventually, IMO, even this tracking for spindown status could be removed as only one shutdown(8) behavior should be supported: that of doing nothing and leaving all responsibility of spindown only to kernel. As upstart author pointed in the concerning bug report:
We have an inherent preference for the cleanest and simplest implementation, obviously :-) If that means no userspace code, and just call reboot(), WIN!
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
