Mark Kettenis <[email protected]> wrote: > > I tend to agree that the complexity of this is out of scope for > > man pages. Understanding this properly requires reading books > > about computer architecture first. > > So I would phrase this as something like "device that the OpenBSD > kernel considers removable". And also note that the opposite happens > as well: there are devices that our kernel considers non-removable > that are in fact removable. For example ExpressCard devices, which > are considered non-removable since they are indistinguishable from > normal PCIe devices.
Now you've really stepped in it. I have an expresscard storage device. At suspend time, it gets powered off. It detaches and reattaches at resume time. Any partition mounts are forceably unmounted when that happens. Would softraid work in those conditions? I don't know, and I don't care. I want us all to take a step back here. Some of you want to describe the situation as accurately as possible, and obviously then our users will take what they read as promises that it works that way, it won't change, and they can build complicated layers on top of it. Describing it accurately will only encourage more people to create fragile configurations, write blogs about it, and thus encourage even more people to create more broken situations. I think that procedure is hogwash. A more accurate picture is that the machines don't provide us with sufficient information, and therefore we will do whatever it takes in the kernel to ensure that suspend/resume works for 99% of the people, and the other 1% of people will lose. If people start constructing complicated scenarios, the number of losing cases will increase.
