From owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 29 08:21:47 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB7DD16A4CE; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:21:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (f170.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.170]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C61E643D5D; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:21:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.13.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j2T8LWNN039954; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:21:32 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: "M. Warner Losh" From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:11:48 PDT." <20050329.011148.69987814.imp@bsdimp.com> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:21:32 +0200 Message-ID: <39953.1112084492@critter.freebsd.dk> Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk cc: current@freebsd.org cc: vova@fbsd.ru cc: mdodd@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org cc: julian@elischer.org cc: ticso@cicely.de Subject: Re: Reattach/redetect allways connected umass device - is it possible ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile computing with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:21:47 -0000 In message <20050329.011148.69987814.imp@bsdimp.com>, "M. Warner Losh" writes: >In message: <31970.1112016818@critter.freebsd.dk> > "Poul-Henning Kamp" writes: >: We should get an async event as soon as the media disappears. > >We don't really need to know it is gone until the next time we try to >access it... Tell that to somebody who is editing a document on the floppy that is no longer there :-) And while I agree with you that in one sense we don't _really_ need to know. But in another and more important sense I think we need to critically consider the actual usage model seen from a users point of view. And once we have settled on that model, we should implement it to the best of our ability, rather than try to see what we "can get away with". I will maintain, based on what little that I have read about user interfaces, that the logical and intuitive behaviour for a computing system is to notice immediately (< 2s) that a storage media has been removed. I'm willing to be a tad more tolerant about inserts, but not much more than 5 seconds. I don't really care if our hardware is lame and brain-dead and needs to be polled in Shakespearan english by actors in victorian custumes, our job is to hide all that crap and give the system what to the users look like a consistent and predictable behaviour. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.