From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jan 14 21:37:01 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A5C616A417;
	Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:37:01 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org)
Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2017C13C448;
	Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:37:00 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org)
Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192)
	id 363971A4D7E; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:33:47 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:33:47 -0800
From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>
To: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua>
Message-ID: <20080114213347.GU99258@elvis.mu.org>
References: <478B3EE0.8040908@icyb.net.ua> <7iir1wtp91.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com>
	<20080114160617.GN99258@elvis.mu.org>
	<478B953F.1070209@icyb.net.ua>
	<20080114170624.GR99258@elvis.mu.org>
	<478B9A2C.4080206@icyb.net.ua>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <478B9A2C.4080206@icyb.net.ua>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Cc: gnn@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cdcontrol purpose
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:37:01 -0000

* Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> [080114 09:18] wrote:
> on 14/01/2008 19:06 Alfred Perlstein said the following:
> > * Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> [080114 08:57] wrote:
> >> So I hope my question would be clearer now: should cdcontrol be allowed
> >> to override "prevent" issued by mount/open(2) and eject a disk in use ?
> >> Or should it simply fail in the same way that the physical button is
> >> disabled?
> > 
> > It should not.
> 
> Sorry, I am not completely sure which question you answered with that,
> damn alternative questions :-)
>

Regarding: 

> >> should cdcontrol be allowed
> >> to override "prevent" issued by mount/open(2) and eject a disk in use ?

It should not do this.  It should NOT eject a disk in use.

Furthermore:

> > If in that situation the tool does not emit a diagnostic that's
> > useful then it could be augmented to do so.



-- 
- Alfred Perlstein