[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1221128797.30437.4.camel@azhang.bj.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:26:37 -0400
From: Austin Zhang <austin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: multinymous@...il.com, Elias Oltmanns <eo@...ensachen.de>,
Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Laptop shock detection and harddisk protection
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-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists