[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Laptop shock detection and harddisk protection
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 18:59 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:

> 2. If we're gonna unify interface, how much can we unify the backend?
> Some devices are based on polling, others interrupt. For polling,
> is it better to delegate the whole polling to userland or is it
> better to do some of it in kernel (tp_smapi seems to be doing
> this)?
Shock protection should be time-sensitive, if we put the whole polling
into userland, will it be possible that the damage had happened before
userland app can signal ATA idle command timely?

> 3. What about the userland daemon? It would be best to have a unified
> daemon which can handle all instead of one for hdaps and another
> for hp (and so on). If we can unify the interface, this will be
> much easier.
> Thanks.

Can this process "acceleration-detect --> inform ATA shock protect -->
issue idle command" be done totally in kernel, avoiding to consume too
many time for "acceleration-detect --> sysfs --> userland app --> sysfs
--> inform ATA shock protect --> issue idle command" before HD was damaged?
The userland daemon should be just a indicator (but of course it can pass
params to driver) for the protection status rather than a judge.

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-11 12:33    [W:0.113 / U:5.740 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site