From owner-freebsd-scsi Fri Dec 27 08:22:44 1996 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id IAA25950 for freebsd-scsi-outgoing; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 08:22:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de [141.76.1.11]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id IAA25938 for ; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 08:22:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from sax.sax.de (sax.sax.de [193.175.26.33]) by irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with ESMTP id RAA19377; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 17:22:14 +0100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by sax.sax.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with UUCP id RAA03556; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 17:21:58 +0100 Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.8.4/8.6.9) id RAA13776; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 17:02:46 +0100 (MET) From: J Wunsch Message-Id: <199612271602.RAA13776@uriah.heep.sax.de> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/scsi cd.c To: freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.org (FreeBSD SCSI list) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 17:02:46 +0100 (MET) Cc: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) In-Reply-To: <199612271158.WAA27787@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from Michael Smith at "Dec 27, 96 10:28:28 pm" X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL17 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As Michael Smith wrote: > The "unit is not spinning" status should probably be an error/status > return to the generic SCSI layer in the "ideal world". Why? No. For example, i've added extra code to the od driver to (optionally) take the drive down if it's idle. I know that other people have also been requesting this for fixed disks, e.g. in cases where they use it as an archive disk which is only rarely used and generates enough noise so you don't wanna have it running all the time. Actually, the guy requesting this even thought of a timeout- controlled spindown, while my code only uses device open/close events. > > Why do you want to have the disks spun up at probe time? IMHO, > > Because there are no other demands on the system at that point in time. There are no other activities on that particular drive at device open time either, provided you catch multiple open's with a driver-internal flag. Things are more complicated for a timeout-controlled spindown, but even then, you can still arrange for that target not seeing multiple commands. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)