From: be-news06@lina.inka.de (Bernd Eckenfels)
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Flames over -- Re: Which is simpler?
Organization: Private Site running Debian GNU/Linux
In-Reply-To: <43F8C464.3000509@cfl.rr.com>
User-Agent: tin/1.7.8-20050315 ("Scalpay") (UNIX) (Linux/2.6.13.4 (i686))
Message-Id: <E1FAuzA-0003OM-00@calista.inka.de>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:16:48 +0100
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 922
Lines: 21

Phillip Susi <psusi@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> No, I wasn't arguing that it should be okay to unplug a usb drive while 
> the system is suspended, I was saying that it is better for the kernel 
> to assume you did not when it can't really tell, since you aren't 
> supposed to do that anyhow.

I wonder if this problem can be solved with a generic multi-path layer.
Every time a new Device shows up, it is tested for known volumnes and
re-attached. That way the USB layer can still generate new devices, and the
filesystem layer will not lose the connection to the devices. 

(with the addtional benefit that it also works cleaner for real multipath
server environments)

Gruss
Bernd
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/