[Pkg-sysvinit-devel] Bug#426224: Bug#426224: shutdown patches - the choices

[Kel Modderman]

Hi,

On Thursday 13 December 2007 17:35:20 Artur Szymiec wrote:
> Kel Modderman pisze:
> > Package: sysvinit
> > Version: 2.86.ds1-38.1
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm following up on this ticket, since I've not received any response
>
> for the
>
> > best part of 6 months.
> >
> > The patch I proposed here is, IMHO, the most complete of the ones offered
> > so far. Recently, I was made aware of someone also claiming [0] the
>
> patch [1]
>
> > from Werner Fink, discussed [2] on the novell bug tracker, would be
>
> great to
>
> > include into our own Debian version of sysvinit to fix the shutdown
>
> issue of
>
> > spinning down disks correctly (...or not).
> >
> > However, r1067 [3] was committed to pkg-sysvinit trunk, which merges the
> > changes done in the "libata-fixes" branch which was for testing [4].
>
> Tejun Heo,
>
> > an active libata/kernel hacker, replied [5] with information that
>
> Werner Fink
>
> > was also working on this issue. Tejun was also active in the development
> > of the patch as seen on the novell bug discussion [2].
> >
> > I emailed the list [6] with discussion requested at [4], created a
>
> patch for
>
> > the debian package [7], and tested the patch thoroughly on a very wide
>
> variety
>
> > of hardware from debian installed and live-cd environments over the last
> > 6 months. The patch works as advertised.
> >
> > opensuse 10.3 also contains a sysvinit using the mentioned patch. This
>
> means
>
> > it has seen widespread testing from a variety of people on a variety of
> > hardware.
> >
> > The patch matches the criteria set out at [8] about how hddown.c could
> > best handle this (except using /proc):
> >
> > [quote]
> >     a) it uses sysfs and not /proc to locate disks, and that it locates
> >        all IDE and SCSI/libata disks, or maybe do both /proc and sysfs.
> >     b) that it verifies the state of kernel disk spindown control for
> >        each disk, and for the disks where it is unavailable:
> >        b1) issue cache sync to disk
> >        b2) issue spin down to disk
> >     c) for the disks where kernel spin down control is available, enable
> >        it and skip to next disk.
> > [/quote]
> >
> > The patch does not suffer from limitation of an alternate patch offered
> > to fix the situation that is discussed at [9], which seems to be similar
> > in limitation to what has been merged [3].
> >
> > Ok, there are too many damn numbers listed below with references. But
>
> you get
>
> > the picture I hope, that I'm concerned about the direction the
>
> maintainers [10]
>
> > intend to take in order to fix this issue, and that I've laid out as much
> > information, patch and help that I can to try and convince them there is
> > a better solution.
> >
> > Thanks, Kel.
> >
> > [0]
>
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-sysvinit-devel/2007-December/0
>02141.html
>
> > [1] https://bugzilla.novell.com/attachment.cgi?id=145904
> > [2] https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=229210
> > [3]
>
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-sysvinit-commits/2007-November
>/000955.html
>
> > [4]
>
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-sysvinit-devel/2007-June/00196
>1.html
>
> > [5]
>
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-sysvinit-devel/2007-June/00196
>3.html
>
> > [6]
>
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-sysvinit-devel/2007-June/00197
>2.html
>
> > [7]
>
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-sysvinit-devel/2007-June/00197
>4.html
>
> > [8] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=426224#10
> > [9] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=436703
> > [10]
>
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-sysvinit-devel/2007-December/0
>02142.html
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pkg-sysvinit-devel mailing list
> > Pkg-sysvinit-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org
> > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-sysvinit-devel
>
> Greetings,
>
> I've sent a patch for Debian sysv init hdd down over a month ago
> (4.11.2007).
> Till now I  haven't receive any comment regarding it.
> Could you please review it too ?
> Attached files (hdd.c and a patch in attachment).

Why would I want to look up another patch to review it after already investing 
time recommending what I truly believe to be a comprehensive fix? This is 
surely the job of the maintainers to discuss the options and choose their 
choice of action. The trick is to solicit a response from them.

If you really want me to, make it a bit easier by giving a unambiguous link to 
the content _and_ state what it does better in comparison to what we could 
inherit from Werner Fink that I've argued in favour of a long long time ago, 
and referenced again in the mail you replied to.

Thanks, Kel.