Hi Pavel,
Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi1
>
>> >> >> +module_param_named(protect_method, libata_protect_method, int, 0444);
>> >> >> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(protect_method, "hdaps disk protection method
>> >> >> (0=autodetect, 1=unload, 2=standby)");
>> >> >
>> >> > Should this be
Hi Pavel,
Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi1
+module_param_named(protect_method, libata_protect_method, int, 0444);
+MODULE_PARM_DESC(protect_method, hdaps disk protection method
(0=autodetect, 1=unload, 2=standby));
Should this be configurable by module parameter? Why
Hi1
> >> >> +module_param_named(protect_method, libata_protect_method, int, 0444);
> >> >> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(protect_method, "hdaps disk protection method
> >> >> (0=autodetect, 1=unload, 2=standby)");
> >> >
> >> > Should this be configurable by module parameter? Why not tell each
> >> >
Hi1
+module_param_named(protect_method, libata_protect_method, int, 0444);
+MODULE_PARM_DESC(protect_method, hdaps disk protection method
(0=autodetect, 1=unload, 2=standby));
Should this be configurable by module parameter? Why not tell each
unload what to do?
[...]
Is
On Sun, Dec 10 2006, Elias Oltmanns wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> Elias Oltmanns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, here is a patch in which your remarks and suggestions have been
> > incorporated. Additionally, I've added the requested kernel doc file
> > and another sysfs attribute called
On Sun, Dec 10 2006, Elias Oltmanns wrote:
Hi Jens,
Elias Oltmanns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, here is a patch in which your remarks and suggestions have been
incorporated. Additionally, I've added the requested kernel doc file
and another sysfs attribute called protect_method. The
Hi Jens,
Elias Oltmanns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, here is a patch in which your remarks and suggestions have been
> incorporated. Additionally, I've added the requested kernel doc file
> and another sysfs attribute called protect_method. The usage of this
> attribute is described in
Hi Pavel,
Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> +module_param_named(protect_method, libata_protect_method, int, 0444);
>> >> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(protect_method, "hdaps disk protection method
>> >> (0=autodetect, 1=unload, 2=standby)");
>> >
>> > Should this be configurable by module
Hi Pavel,
Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+module_param_named(protect_method, libata_protect_method, int, 0444);
+MODULE_PARM_DESC(protect_method, hdaps disk protection method
(0=autodetect, 1=unload, 2=standby));
Should this be configurable by module parameter? Why not tell
Hi Jens,
Elias Oltmanns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, here is a patch in which your remarks and suggestions have been
incorporated. Additionally, I've added the requested kernel doc file
and another sysfs attribute called protect_method. The usage of this
attribute is described in
Hi!
> >> 1. Adds functions to ide-disk.c and scsi_lib.c that issue an idle
> >>immediate with head unload or a standby immediate command as
> >>appropriate and stop the queue on command completion.
> >
> > Can we get short Documentation/ patch?
>
> Sure. Would
Hi!
1. Adds functions to ide-disk.c and scsi_lib.c that issue an idle
immediate with head unload or a standby immediate command as
appropriate and stop the queue on command completion.
Can we get short Documentation/ patch?
Sure. Would Documentation/block/disk-protection.txt be
Hi Pavel,
thanks a lot for your first review. See comments below.
Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
[...]
>> Here is a short description of what the patch does in its current
>> shape:
>>
>> 1. Adds functions to ide-disk.c and scsi_lib.c that issue an idle
>>immediate with
Hi Pavel,
thanks a lot for your first review. See comments below.
Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
[...]
Here is a short description of what the patch does in its current
shape:
1. Adds functions to ide-disk.c and scsi_lib.c that issue an idle
immediate with head unload or a
On Mon, Nov 27 2006, Elias Oltmanns wrote:
> Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 21 2006, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> [...]
> >> > After some googeling and digging in gamne i read that someone said that
> >> > there are plans for some generic support for HD-parking in
On 11/30/06, Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Should we have kernel doing auto-unfreeze? Perhaps we can just mlock()
the daemon?
You could be in the middle of suspend with by-now-frozen userspace; or
maybe the daemon had a SEGV or was accidentally killed. Can't trust
that.
Shem
-
To
On 11/30/06, Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Does hdaps work for you, btw? It gave all zeros on my x60, iirc.
>
> Yes, vanilla hdaps is broken. It blindly issues commands to the
> embedded controller without following the protocol or checking the
> status. The patched version in the
Hi!
> >> > After some googeling and digging in gamne i read that someone said that
> >> > there are plans for some generic support for HD-parking in the kernel
> >> > and thus making such patches obsolete.
> [...]
> >> I'm afraid we need your help with development here. Porting old patch
> >> to
Hi!
> >Does hdaps work for you, btw? It gave all zeros on my x60, iirc.
>
> Yes, vanilla hdaps is broken. It blindly issues commands to the
> embedded controller without following the protocol or checking the
> status. The patched version in the tp_smapi package fixes it.
Is there a way to
Hi!
Does hdaps work for you, btw? It gave all zeros on my x60, iirc.
Yes, vanilla hdaps is broken. It blindly issues commands to the
embedded controller without following the protocol or checking the
status. The patched version in the tp_smapi package fixes it.
Is there a way to extract
Hi!
After some googeling and digging in gamne i read that someone said that
there are plans for some generic support for HD-parking in the kernel
and thus making such patches obsolete.
[...]
I'm afraid we need your help with development here. Porting old patch
to 2.6.19-rc6 should
On 11/30/06, Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does hdaps work for you, btw? It gave all zeros on my x60, iirc.
Yes, vanilla hdaps is broken. It blindly issues commands to the
embedded controller without following the protocol or checking the
status. The patched version in the tp_smapi
On 11/30/06, Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should we have kernel doing auto-unfreeze? Perhaps we can just mlock()
the daemon?
You could be in the middle of suspend with by-now-frozen userspace; or
maybe the daemon had a SEGV or was accidentally killed. Can't trust
that.
Shem
-
To
On Mon, Nov 27 2006, Elias Oltmanns wrote:
Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 21 2006, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
[...]
After some googeling and digging in gamne i read that someone said that
there are plans for some generic support for HD-parking in the kernel
and thus
Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21 2006, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
[...]
>> > After some googeling and digging in gamne i read that someone said that
>> > there are plans for some generic support for HD-parking in the kernel
>> > and thus making such patches obsolete.
Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 21 2006, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
[...]
After some googeling and digging in gamne i read that someone said that
there are plans for some generic support for HD-parking in the kernel
and thus making such patches obsolete.
[...]
I'm afraid we
Jens Axboe oracle.com> writes:
>
> On Tue, Nov 21 2006, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > Well, the actual question is the following,
> > > I read about HDAPS on thinkWiki. But there is no known-to-work patch for
> > > 2.6.18 and above to enable queue-freezing/harddisk parking.
> > > After
Jens Axboe jens.axboe at oracle.com writes:
On Tue, Nov 21 2006, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Well, the actual question is the following,
I read about HDAPS on thinkWiki. But there is no known-to-work patch for
2.6.18 and above to enable queue-freezing/harddisk parking.
After some
28 matches
Mail list logo
