[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2 01/12] Add sys_hotplug.h for system device hotplug framework
On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 10:39:48 AM Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 12:11:17PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, February 04, 2013 04:04:47 PM Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 12:52:30AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > You'd probably never try to hot-remove a disk before unmounting filesystems
> > > > mounted from it or failing it as a RAID component and nobody sane wants the
> > > > kernel to do things like that automatically when the user presses the eject
> > > > button. In my opinion we should treat memory eject, or CPU package eject, or
> > > > PCI host bridge eject in exactly the same way: Don't eject if it is not
> > > > prepared for ejecting in the first place.
> > >
> > > Bad example, we have disks hot-removed all the time without any
> > > filesystems being unmounted, and have supported this since the 2.2 days
> > > (although we didn't get it "right" until 2.6.)
> >
> > I actually don't think it is really bad, because it exposes the problem nicely.
> >
> > Namely, there are two arguments that can be made here. The first one is the
> > usability argument: Users should always be allowed to do what they want,
> > because it is [explicit content] annoying if software pretends to know better
> > what to do than the user (it is a convenience argument too, because usually
> > it's *easier* to allow users to do what they want). The second one is the
> > data integrity argument: Operations that may lead to data loss should never
> > be carried out, because it is [explicit content] disappointing to lose valuable
> > stuff by a stupid mistake if software allows that mistake to be made (that also
> > may be costly in terms of real money).
> >
> > You seem to believe that we should always follow the usability argument, while
> > Toshi seems to be thinking that (at least in the case of the "system" devices),
> > the data integrity argument is more important. They are both valid arguments,
> > however, and they are in conflict, so this is a matter of balance.
> >
> > You're saying that in the case of disks we always follow the usability argument
> > entirely. I'm fine with that, although I suspect that some people may not be
> > considering this as the right balance.
> >
> > Toshi seems to be thinking that for the hotplug of memory/CPUs/host bridges we
> > should always follow the data integrity argument entirely, because the users of
> > that feature value their data so much that they pretty much don't care about
> > usability. That very well may be the case, so I'm fine with that too, although
> > I'm sure there are people who'll argue that this is not the right balance
> > either.
> >
> > Now, the point is that we *can* do what Toshi is arguing for and that doesn't
> > seem to be overly complicated, so my question is: Why don't we do that, at
> > least to start with? If it turns out eventually that the users care about
> > usability too, after all, we can add a switch to adjust things more to their
> > liking. Still, we can very well do that later.
> Ok, I'd much rather deal with reviewing actual implementations than
> talking about theory at this point in time, so let's see what you all
> can come up with next and I'll be glad to review it.

Sure, thanks a lot for your comments so far!


I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-05 22:41    [W:0.069 / U:0.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site