Am Dienstag, 5. Oktober 2010, 19:19:46 schrieb James Bottomley: > 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. I see. It seems to me that this is true for SDEV_OFFLINE only. Regards Oliver -- 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
