Jason McIntyre <[email protected]> wrote: > > It is extremely complicated, there is no way to accurately explain > > in user-speak what devices detach and what devices don't detach. > > > > pluggable?
Sorry, that is completely untrue. What kind of plug? A USB plug? A MMC plug? A PCI plug? A MINI-PCIE plug? A docking station which has both USB or PCI plugins? An internal USB plug? How about an internal SDMMC device? And how about thunderbolt? How about an extern scsi chassis with it's own power? I could probably write a 5-sentence paragraph delineating the boundaries with great precision and yet the people reading it would find they still cannot discern exactly what devices will be detached. "If it loses power" isn't accurate either. Some of our drivers even self-protect themselves by FORCING a detach of their children. you all seem to want a single word or a simple sentence, but I'm sorry it isn't simple at all. > > And if we can't write a correct sentence for that, maybe we should realize > > we don't need to? > > > > Make a proposal. > > > > i agree that the original proposal was wrong. if anything, you'd maybe > want to know, for example, how to make it that you *were* asked for your > password when resuming an encrypted mount. that seems more pertinent to > softraid(4) than apm(8). I think that is nonsense. These subsystems were not designed to work together in the way that people _now believe_ they should work together. Now they want to document small little edges of their experience without understanding how the layers of different code actually works? It is trying to document based upon ignorance.
