On 2009-03-26 09:54, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2009-Mar-20 19:19:38 +0000, Bruce Cran <bruce_at_cran.org.uk> wrote: >> There's a reluctance to include code like this, I >> think because it bypasses the ATA driver and talks directly to the >> drive. Since the driver doesn't know what the drive's been told to do, >> it can't know to adjust timers etc. to wait for the disk to spin back >> up, for example. > > This code is no worse than installing sysutils/ataidle - which also > bypasses the driver. In the case of this particular patch, it only enables adjusting the harddisk's APM and Acoustic Management settings. These should have no influence on the ATA driver. Most (notebook) disks will internally spin down and up anyway, if APM is enabled by default in the factory, and there's not much the ATA driver can do about it. Same for Acoustic Management, this apparently lets it make more or less noise, having nothing to do with the driver. Would it really be necessary to move this userspace piece of code into the kernel? I guess I could patch it so the whole ATA request stuff goes into the ATA driver itself, but what do you gain by doing this? More complexity in the ATA driver? :)Received on Thu Mar 26 2009 - 11:53:08 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:45 UTC