From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751437AbVIVGYx (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Sep 2005 02:24:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751436AbVIVGYx (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Sep 2005 02:24:53 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:22827 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751433AbVIVGYw (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Sep 2005 02:24:52 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:18:50 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Joshua Kwan , Linux Kernel , "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: SATA suspend-to-ram patch - merge? Message-ID: <20050922061849.GJ7929@suse.de> References: <433104E0.4090308@triplehelix.org> <433221A1.5000600@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <433221A1.5000600@pobox.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 21 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Joshua Kwan wrote: > >Is Jens' patch still relevant? If so, should it be rediffed and merged > >into mainline? It doesn't seem to cause any weird side-effects. > > > >More importantly, I would be inclined to properly rediff Jens' patch and > >merge it into Debian 2.6.12 kernel sources if there aren't any such > >side-effects, since it benefits everyone using SATA and suspend-to-ram > >(that is, users of relatively modern laptops.) > > Jens' patch is technical correct for SATA, but really we want to do more > stuff at the SCSI layer (see James Bottomley's response to Jens' patch). > > Unfortunately, this also implies that we have to figure out which SCSI > devices are available to be power-managed, and which SCSI devices are on > a shared bus that should never be suspended. > > So currently we are in limbo... Which is a shame, since it means that software suspend on sata is basically impossible :) -- Jens Axboe