On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 1:21 AM, Carlos A. M. dos Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Carlos A. M. dos Santos > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Volker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Carlos, >>> >>> IMHO it's better to explicitly check for ioctl returning EBUSY and 5 >>> seconds may not fit every situation. >>> >>> Volker >> >> Ok, I will attempt the approach of checking for EBUSY. > > I found that ioctl(fd, CDIOCEJECT) returns EIO, not EBUSY, so it seems > that there is no better solution. I was able to improve the delays, > however (see attachmet). Now they grow exponentially, limited to 31 > seconds (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16). This is better than flooding the CD > drive with one eject request per second.
Any update on this issue? I'd suggest you to at least close the PR if the proposed patch is not acceptable. I must admit that it is only a tricky workaround, not a masterpiece, so I will not feel offended. :-) -- If you think things can't get worse it's probably only because you lack sufficient imagination. _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
