Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756989AbXEQRCm (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 May 2007 13:02:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755383AbXEQRCd (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 May 2007 13:02:33 -0400 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.226]:33543 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755146AbXEQRCb (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 May 2007 13:02:31 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=W/o9x+gxlpK2FheR13BemOIFz1OFgpgfN2gAlh63y8jEPL5d9pR0YRu6BsQFgwWy29vkGwgQmlvXgzjT5SadMMTlD4Pckaz7FQYWt0gptrsFjJsPLj/sBNhLliUYkb+xGNH5uS2LUfG0INVb+x8I6QgT94Rkv+Iv+hzHJRNE588= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 22:32:30 +0530 From: "Satyam Sharma" To: "James Bottomley" Subject: Re: [PATCH] SCSI: Let users disable SCSI_WAIT_SCAN to be built Cc: "Stefan Richter" , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, "Simon Arlott" , "Dave Jones" , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" , kernel-packagers@vger.kernel.org, "Matthew Wilcox" In-Reply-To: <1179410407.3785.16.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1179073116.3723.45.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <1179153096.3703.23.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <17841.simon.1179228389@5ec7c279.invalid> <20070515120228.GI10562@parisc-linux.org> <4649E03A.1090004@simon.arlott.org.uk> <20070515172905.GJ10562@parisc-linux.org> <464B1886.1060502@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <1179410407.3785.16.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1253 Lines: 25 On 5/17/07, James Bottomley wrote: > [...] > Please don't bother ... I really want a more considered way of fixing > this. If everyone decides the best way is exposing this to the user, > then this is the way to do it ... however, I still don't consider this > argument made out yet. Neither do I, considering that the user can switch async scanning on at any later time with the scan=async module option. The absence of the async scan wait module will only screw things up for him later. But then I don't consider an argument made out yet for doing this via a separate module in the first place. scsi_wait_scan just does _not_ want/deserve/need to be a module. Of course, whining is useless, and discussions on lkml tend to be most constructive / progressive only over code, so I'll try and see if I can learn enough of the code in there to fix a patch to do the async scan waiting thing using some other mechanism; this module thing seems just horribly wrong/unnecessary. - 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/