On 12/04/2012 02:56 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 12/03/2012 11:23 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello, James.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 08:25:43AM +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/include/scsi/scsi_device.h b/include/scsi/scsi_device.h
>>>> index e65c62e..1756151 100644
>>>> --- a/include/scsi/scsi_device.h
>>>> +++ b/include/scsi/scsi_device.h
>>>> @@ -160,6 +160,7 @@ struct scsi_device {
>>>> unsigned can_power_off:1; /* Device supports runtime power off */
>>>> unsigned wce_default_on:1; /* Cache is ON by default */
>>>> unsigned no_dif:1; /* T10 PI (DIF) should be disabled */
>>>> + unsigned event_driven:1; /* No need to poll the device */
>>>>
>>>> DECLARE_BITMAP(supported_events, SDEV_EVT_MAXBITS); /* supported events
>>>> */
>>>> struct list_head event_list; /* asserted events */
>>>
>>> Yes, but if we can get away with doing that, it should be in genhd
>>> because it's completely generic.
>>>
>>> I was imagining we'd have to fake the reply to the test unit ready or
>>> some other commands, which is why it would need to be in sr.c
>>>
>>> The check events code is Tejun's baby, if he's OK with it then just do
>>> it in genhd.c
>>
>> The problem here is there's no easy to reach genhd from libata (or the
>> other way around) without going through sr. I think we're gonna have
>> to have something in sr one way or the other.
>
> ...which is precisely as I said when v1 of this ZPODD patchset appeared.
>
> sr modifications cannot be avoided.
So I'm gonna use the above code to silence the poll when ODD is powered
off. I suppose everybody is OK with this, right? James, please let me
know if you disagree.
Thanks,
Aaron
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
