[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4649E03A.1090004@simon.arlott.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 17:30:50 +0100
From: Simon Arlott <simon@...e.lp0.eu>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
CC: James Bottomley <james.bottomley@...eleye.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, kernel-packagers@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Asynchronous scsi scanning
On 15/05/07 13:02, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 12:26:29PM +0100, Simon Arlott wrote:
>> I've already suggested a sysfs attribute - or something equivalent - would
>> be much better. It's just one function that a user might want to run multiple
>> times (e.g. after adding scsi devices?) - why should loading a module be used
>> for this?
>
> It's easy to suggest a sysfs attribute. What you've failed to do is
> suggest the pathname of the sysfs attribute, the contents of it, or the
> semantics of it (read-only? read-write? write-only? blocking?)
I would assume that should be up to SCSI users/maintainer(s). The only thing
I use the SCSI driver for is usb-storage/ATAPI.
> My personal favourite would be to add a new verb to /proc/scsi/scsi, but
> James dislikes that idea.
>
> I'd *really* like to hear from distro people. What is the most
> convenient way for you to implement "load all the scsi modules, then
> wait until all devices are found"? James and I had thought that loading
> a new module would be the easiest way for you, but it seems inconvenient
> for you.
It's inconvenient for people who *don't* use it to be unable to stop the
module being built and installed.
--
Simon Arlott
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists