[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a781481a0705151649p4cc61bceqd61d778a67776c7f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 05:19:40 +0530
From: "Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
To: "Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Matthew Wilcox" <matthew@....cx>,
"Simon Arlott" <simon@...e.lp0.eu>,
"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,
"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
Subject: Re: Asynchronous scsi scanning
On 5/16/07, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> Satyam Sharma wrote:
> >> > >semantics of it (read-only? read-write? write-only?
> >
> > Well, it _has_ to be write, don't really care if it's read-write or
> > write-only. I would still prefer read-write, but we can go ahead with
> > write-only too. It doesn't really matter, does it?
>
> just to be devils advocate...
> it should be a read that returns when done,
Heh, yeah. We just need to trigger that scsi_complete_async_scans()
after all ... might as well abuse all intuition on the user's behalf :-)
> and that can be polled
Gaah! :-)
But seriously, though, this sysfs attribute can be implemented
_any which way_. Better for us if we do it the simplest way (and which
taxes the user's intuition the least). Just that Matthew asked so many
questions so I thought I might as well answer them :-)
-
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