Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270024AbUJEQp3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:45:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270193AbUJEQo6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:44:58 -0400 Received: from stat16.steeleye.com ([209.192.50.48]:42956 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270128AbUJEQiW (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:38:22 -0400 Subject: Re: Core scsi layer crashes in 2.6.8.1 From: James Bottomley To: Oliver Neukum Cc: Mark Lord , Anton Blanchard , Alan Cox , Linux Kernel Mailing List , SCSI Mailing List In-Reply-To: <200410051826.11892.oliver@neukum.org> References: <1096401785.13936.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200410051801.03677.oliver@neukum.org> <1096992458.2173.35.camel@mulgrave> <200410051826.11892.oliver@neukum.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-9) Date: 05 Oct 2004 11:38:11 -0500 Message-Id: <1096994297.2173.50.camel@mulgrave> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 889 Lines: 21 On Tue, 2004-10-05 at 11:26, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > b) The scsi bus is a scanned model ... drivers must be prepared to > > accept commands for non-existent devices. How does the removal case > > differ from the never present case? > > It doesn't. But that doesn't explain why you want to issue the command > in all cases, even if we coule easily tell you whether it makes sense or > not? It makes no sense to me to throw away information you already have. I'm lazy ... I don't see any point in going to a huge engineering effort to avoid behaviour that the driver must cope correctly with anyway. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/