On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 03:24:33PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 03:15:54PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > > You will have to argue this point with Phillip. > > > > If necessary, we could add a sysfs attribute to force a spin-up during > > system resume. Or you could disable runtime PM for the disk, but that > > has its own disadvantages. > > Isn't immediate spin-up trivial to implement from anywhere? I'm not > sure whether we'll end up defaulting to the lazy behavior or not but > if we do requiring userland to echo something to sysfs to configure > immediate spin-up feels a bit silly when userland might as well just > issue a dummy command to force spinup. > > And, yes, I agree with Dan that avoiding spinup of harddrives on > system resume seems a bit niche in its usefulness. suspend/resume > cycle at the very least generates logs which most likely will be > committed to the drive sooner or later. > > What kind of use cases are we expecting for the lazy behavior? Phillip and Alan, some test data would also be helpful to back up your point. > > Thanks. > > -- > tejun -- 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
