On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 18:59 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: > 2. If we're gonna unify interface, how much can we unify the backend? > Some devices are based on polling, others interrupt. For polling, > is it better to delegate the whole polling to userland or is it > better to do some of it in kernel (tp_smapi seems to be doing > this)? Shock protection should be time-sensitive, if we put the whole polling into userland, will it be possible that the damage had happened before userland app can signal ATA idle command timely? > 3. What about the userland daemon? It would be best to have a unified > daemon which can handle all instead of one for hdaps and another > for hp (and so on). If we can unify the interface, this will be > much easier. > > Thanks. Can this process "acceleration-detect --> inform ATA shock protect --> issue idle command" be done totally in kernel, avoiding to consume too many time for "acceleration-detect --> sysfs --> userland app --> sysfs --> inform ATA shock protect --> issue idle command" before HD was damaged? The userland daemon should be just a indicator (but of course it can pass params to driver) for the protection status rather than a judge. -- 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
