linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] unnecessary SCSI module

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1236696391.3316.6.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:46:30 -0500
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	Ingo Brueckl <ib@...peronline.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] unnecessary SCSI module

On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 08:00 +0100, Ingo Brueckl wrote:
> James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com> writes:
> 
> >> When configuring MODULES with the kernel to be able to load external
> >> drivers coming as modules, but not using anything as module in the kernel
> >> itself, one would expect to end up in a module-free kernel. Currently, you
> >> don't if you use SCSI. You'll get one unnecessary module.
> 
>  > This isn't right because SCSI_SCAN_ASYNC only sets the *default*
>  > behaviour of the kernel.  Even if it's n the user can still boot up with
>  > async scans by setting the kernel parameter.
> 
> Ok, understood. But has it to be a module then? Why not giving the choice
> between building it directly into the kernel or as a module?

If you read through the threads, that question is answered.

>  > It also keeps coming up regularly:
> 
> Well, then something doesn't seem to be ok, does it? ;-)

James


--
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/