From: Keshavamurthy A. S <ani...@in...> - 2004-09-21 21:52:03
|
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 12:51:36AM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Monday 20 September 2004 08:38 pm, Keshavamurthy Anil S wrote: > > Currently I am handling both the surprise removal and the eject request in the same > > way, i,e send the notification to the userland and the usermode agent scripts > > is responsible for offlining of all the devices and then echoing onto eject file. > > > > I actually think that on the highest level we should treat controlled and > surprise ejects differently. With controlled ejects the system (kernel + > userspace) can abort the sequence if something goes wrong while with surprise > eject the device is physically gone. Even if driver refuses to detach or we > have partition still mounted or something else if physical device is gone we > don't have any choice except for trimming the tree and doing whatever we need > to do. I agree, but when dealing with devices like CPU and Memory, not sure how the rest of the Operating System handles surprise removal. For now I will go ahead and add a PRINTK saying that BUS_CHECK(surprise removal request) was received in the ACPI Processor and in the container driver, and when we hit that printk on a real hardware, I believe it would be the right time then to see how the OS behaves and do the right code then. For Now I will just go ahead and add a PRINTK. Let me know if this step by step approach is okay to you. thanks, Anil |