Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756846AbYKDQaV (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2008 11:30:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755445AbYKDQaB (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2008 11:30:01 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:53460 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755501AbYKDQaA (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2008 11:30:00 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 08:29:20 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Jeff Garzik cc: Andrew Morton , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, LKML Subject: Re: [git patches] libata hibernation fixes In-Reply-To: <20081104062734.GA4420@havoc.gtf.org> Message-ID: References: <20081104062734.GA4420@havoc.gtf.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1640 Lines: 44 On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > This adds code at a late stage (heading towards -rc4), but does > eliminate a particular spin-up overcycling behavior associated with > hibernation. What does this have to do with hibernation? If it's a hibernation-only issue, then there is something wrong. Also, if it is an issue for normal power-off as well, then I wonder why this isn't an issue on Windows. Does windows not spin down disks at all? IOW, I really don't think this is correct. I _do_ think that correct might be: - maybe we just do something odd and different, triggering some BIOS behavior that isn't there under Windows. So we should power down thigns differently so that the BIOS. - quite possibly: we just should not spin down disks at all, and just flush them and do the "park" command thing. If we're _really_ powering off, the disks will spin down on their own when power goes away. Maybe that's what Windows does? So I really don't want to pull this, because I want to get more of an explanation for why we need to do this at all. I also don't think this is even appropriate at this stage in -rc. Is it a regression? If so, that just strengthens the questions above - what did _we_ start doing wrong that this is needed at all? Let's just stop doing that, not add some idiotic black-list for somethign that _we_ do wrong. Linus -- 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/