2007/5/15, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Yeah, it's a big mess. With this patch applied, what happens is...
* If your shutdown(8) does issue STANDBYNOW : you get the big fat
warning and kernel won't issue STANDBYNOW.
* If your shutdown(8) doesn't issue STANDBYNOW : kernel issues FLUSH
CACHE followed by STANDBYNOW and all is well and dandy without any
userland modification.
I think it isn't too bad. Any better ideas?
Seems good for a transitional period. However, as it appeared evident
(and with a bit of luck), probably no distributions are trying to
issuing STANDBYNOW after all.
Eventually, IMO, even this tracking for spindown status could be
removed as only one shutdown(8) behavior should be supported: that of
doing nothing and leaving all responsibility of spindown only to
kernel.
As upstart author pointed in the concerning bug report:
We have an inherent preference for the cleanest and simplest
implementation, obviously :-) If that means no userspace code, and
just call reboot(), WIN!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
