[lkml]   [2000]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Of removable devices
    Khimenko Victor wrote:

    [ snip ]

    > DB> But you CAN ,as at least AmigaOS proves.
    > Of course you can. You'll need "just" DEEP rework of VFS as was discussed in
    > depth here. And still it's not a panacea: if you'll pull floppy EXACTLY when
    > write/read process going you can just mechanically break floppy drive (just
    > like plugging/unplugging SCSI or IDE device: probability is of the same order).

    But it is "normal" to have data-loss/other-problems, if the floppy
    is removed while the LED is on. "Everybody" knows that.
    What is needed is to hadle the case "floppy removed while no LED ,
    but still mounted".

    > DB> If you didn't understand it at first, I'll repeat it :
    > DB> IT CAN BE DONE !!!!!!
    > I repeat as well: It should be done right or not at all.

    The amiga way is/was right enough for me. It didn't repair HW damage,
    did all the rest possible.

    > >> P.S. BTW ZIP drive HAS needed knobs in place: when I press "Eject" button in
    > >> Windows I get message ON SCREEN "You are trying to eject disk while it's in
    > >> use. Ok, Cancel ?" (translation from Russian). If I press Ok disk is ejected,
    > >> if press Cancel disk will not be ejected. So at least for ZIP drive you can
    > >> implement proper supermount (with small change in kernel and autofs) --
    > >> hardware supports it.
    > DB> <teasing>
    > DB> But who gets the dialog ? Which user ? And if nobody is logged in ?
    > DB> </teasing>
    > Why I need dialog ? In case of linux pressing of eject button can iniciate

    Well somebody was pretty obsessed with dialogs in this thread , so
    i used his text.

    > umount process and then eject. If umount failed I'll not get my zip drive
    > and will find and kill offending process.
    > DB> I answered ( in short ) these questions in my other post.
    > DB> Anyone using common-sense can answer them , so I will not repeat it
    > DB> here.
    > And you answer is bad. Here owner of /dev/fd0 is always "root,floppy".
    > Root is VERY rarely loggin in. All trusted users are in "floppy" group.
    > Now: who should get message about wrongly removed floppy ?

    How about the user logged in on the console ?

    > P.S. Do not answer: I know that right way is to say daemon somehow that
    > "messages about /dev/ide/host0/bus1/target1/lun0/* should go to /dev/console
    > while messages about /dev/scsi/host0/bus1/target7/lun0/* should go to
    > blah.blah.blah:0.0" or something. That is: you need LOTS of changes in
    > kernel AND you need ifrastructure in user-space. Is it reallyworth it ?
    > God knows. So far I'm see hackish solutions which will punish user when
    > user doing mistakes. Not a way to go IMNSHO. If someone REALLY want this
    > behaviour he should sit and code prototype of all infrastructure. Complete
    > with changes in kernel, daemon is userspace and so on.

    I certainly agree with that ! ( the sit down and work stuff )

    David Im-calm-now Balazic

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:56    [W:0.049 / U:15.616 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site