On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 17:21 +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > From d0e0b88a5b271a45f00ab8ae9f22b992d5d090ba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:06:46 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] SCSI:Do not block suspend for abandoned devices > > If a device becomes inaccessible while a suspension > is carried out, the device is gone anyhow. There's > no need to block the suspension, as we'd ignore the > devices on later attempts anyway. So this clarifies what you're trying to do; thanks. However, I still think the premise is wrong: if we get a failure for any reason (whether memory allocation or disk) we probably haven't flushed the disk cache and our next action in suspend (whether to ram or disk) will power the drive down and lose the cache data. I really don't think blocking suspend and informing the user is inappropriate here. James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
