Bug#504391: [PATCH] mmc: add module parameter to set whether cards are assumed removable

2009-12-01 Thread Wouter van Heyst
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 12:32:16PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Sun, 2009-11-22 at 12:42 +0100, Wouter van Heyst wrote: ... I'm running 2.6.32-rc7 with this patch applied and CONFIG_MMC_UNSAFE_RESUME=y That works as desired for my non-removable case. Is it desired that I test if

Bug#504391: [PATCH] mmc: add module parameter to set whether cards are assumed removable

2009-11-30 Thread Pierre Ossman
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:53:00 +0100 Stefan Richter stef...@s5r6.in-berlin.de wrote: Ben Hutchings wrote: In general, it is not possible to tell whether a card present in an MMC slot after resume is the same that was there before suspend. That's true for virtually all storage devices, not

Bug#504391: [PATCH] mmc: add module parameter to set whether cards are assumed removable

2009-11-30 Thread Alan Cox
I'm afraid that's insufficient. What it would need to do is to is flush everything (to make sure what's on disk matches what's in memory), but also read back the filesystem on resume to verify that nothing else modified it (i.e. making sure what's on disk still matches what's in memory). For

Bug#504391: [PATCH] mmc: add module parameter to set whether cards are assumed removable

2009-11-30 Thread Pierre Ossman
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:54:05 + Alan Cox a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote: For most file systems it is sufficient to check the superblock related information. So we'd need an fs-ops-validate_media() or somesuch but it wouldn't be that horrific or need to do much I/O in most cases. You

Bug#504391: [PATCH] mmc: add module parameter to set whether cards are assumed removable

2009-11-30 Thread Adrian Hunter
Ben Hutchings wrote: Some people run general-purpose distribution kernels on netbooks with a card that is physically non-removable or logically non-removable (e.g. used for /home) and cannot be cleanly unmounted during suspend. Add a module parameter to set whether cards are assumed removable or

Bug#504391: [PATCH] mmc: add module parameter to set whether cards are assumed removable

2009-11-30 Thread Alan Cox
You do not cater for having more than one slot e.g. N900 has two: one internal non-removable and one external that is removable. What about a sysfs entry instead e.g. /sys/class/mmc-host/mmc*/nonremovable That continues the assumption that the user will somehow ever know about this stuff

Bug#504391: [PATCH] mmc: add module parameter to set whether cards are assumed removable

2009-11-30 Thread Maxim Levitsky
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 13:39 +0100, Pierre Ossman wrote: On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:53:00 +0100 Stefan Richter stef...@s5r6.in-berlin.de wrote: Ben Hutchings wrote: In general, it is not possible to tell whether a card present in an MMC slot after resume is the same that was there before

Bug#504391: [PATCH] mmc: add module parameter to set whether cards are assumed removable

2009-11-30 Thread Alan Cox
Before we do suspend, pick few random sectors from the media, run that through some hash function, thus creating some sort of watermark. Statistically speaking the chances are you'll catch zero sectors and lose. You'll also not detect the suspend, move to other box, use, put back error. That is

Bug#504391: [PATCH] mmc: add module parameter to set whether cards are assumed removable

2009-11-30 Thread Maxim Levitsky
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 13:51 +, Alan Cox wrote: Before we do suspend, pick few random sectors from the media, run that through some hash function, thus creating some sort of watermark. Statistically speaking the chances are you'll catch zero sectors and lose. You'll also not detect the

Bug#504391: [PATCH] mmc: add module parameter to set whether cards are assumed removable

2009-11-22 Thread Wouter van Heyst
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:31:49PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 12:23 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:44:36 + Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote: Some people run general-purpose distribution kernels on netbooks with a card that is

Bug#504391: [PATCH] mmc: add module parameter to set whether cards are assumed removable

2009-11-22 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Sun, 2009-11-22 at 12:42 +0100, Wouter van Heyst wrote: On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:31:49PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: [...] In general, it is not possible to tell whether a card present in an MMC slot after resume is the same that was there before suspend. So there are two possible

Bug#504391: [PATCH] mmc: add module parameter to set whether cards are assumed removable

2009-11-17 Thread Stefan Richter
Ben Hutchings wrote: In general, it is not possible to tell whether a card present in an MMC slot after resume is the same that was there before suspend. That's true for virtually all storage devices, not just MMC. So there are two possible behaviours, each of which will cause data loss in

Bug#504391: [PATCH] mmc: add module parameter to set whether cards are assumed removable

2009-11-16 Thread Andrew Morton
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:44:36 + Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote: Some people run general-purpose distribution kernels on netbooks with a card that is physically non-removable or logically non-removable (e.g. used for /home) and cannot be cleanly unmounted during suspend. Add a

Bug#504391: [PATCH] mmc: add module parameter to set whether cards are assumed removable

2009-11-16 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 12:23 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:44:36 + Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote: Some people run general-purpose distribution kernels on netbooks with a card that is physically non-removable or logically non-removable (e.g. used for

Bug#504391: [PATCH] mmc: add module parameter to set whether cards are assumed removable

2009-11-10 Thread Ben Hutchings
Some people run general-purpose distribution kernels on netbooks with a card that is physically non-removable or logically non-removable (e.g. used for /home) and cannot be cleanly unmounted during suspend. Add a module parameter to set whether cards are assumed removable or non-removable, with