Re: Laptop shock detection and harddisk protection
From: Austin Zhang
Date: Thu Sep 11 2008 - 06:30:30 EST
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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/