Re: [ibm-acpi-devel] CONFIG_IBM_BAY

[Shem M. <mul...@gm...>]

On 3/20/07, Theodore Tso <ty...@mi...> wrote:
> > Urk.  It is better to either fail the suspend, or to not power down the bay.
> > Or to give the user a choice of which he'd rather happen.  Hmm...
>
> Yeah, I think it needs to be configurable.  In many cases the right
> thing to do is for the user to promise not to swap out bay, and in the
> exception case where they do, all of the processes that have files
> open on that bay will have to get their fd's revoked.  We can try to
> make it less likely for there to be data loss, like asking filesystems
> that support write_super_lockfs() to quiesce the filesystem before the
> suspend, but the assumption should be that users aren't supposed to be
> swapping out the bay if they request the suspend code not to
> disconnect the filesystem.

This is sensical and useful for other devices as well (e.g., USB flash drives).
So the interface, and preferably the implementation too, should be generic.

  Shem