All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, michaelc@cs.wisc.edu,
	Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] scsi_dh: Add modalias support for SCSI targets
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:52:43 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1239832363.1196.5.camel@chandra-ubuntu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49DCBDE6.5000806@redhat.com>

Hi James,

Are your concerns answered ?

Hannes, Kay,

Is the description related to bus notify BIND DEVICE issue clear now ?

Please respond :)

chandra
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 11:08 -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 04/07/2009 04:59 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-04-03 at 15:43 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> >> Hi James,
> >>
> >> Do you still have any concerns (after Peter's response) ?
> > 
> > Yes, the basic concerns still remain:
> > 
> >      1. You're forcing autoload now even if the user isn't running
> >         dm ... this is going to cause problems with non-dm based path
> >         handlers
> 
> (Chandra covered this pretty well, so I'll leave it be.)
> 
> >      2. autoloading in this fashion is essentially trying to work around
> >         a problem in the initrd tools.  The kernel isn't the right place
> >         to implement the fix.
> 
> This seems backwards to me.  It's not trying to work around a problem
> in the initrd tools; it's trying to avoid creating one by making this
> subsystem unlike others.
> 
> The point of having modaliases is to allow the kernel to announce that it's
> got a hardware device and notify the userland that appropriate modules should
> be loaded.  That's exactly what we've done here.  What we're trying to avoid
> in the initrd tools is having to have a special handler for this subsystem;
> instead, we'd much rather use the generic mechanism that already exists for
> this purpose.
> 
> > The risks of this approach seem very high, and the rewards pretty small.
> 
> Can you please explain what the high risks you're thinking of are?  I'm not
> clear on what undesirable behavior you expect to occur.
> 
> The reward is that scsi targets behave exactly like most other types of
> hardware and kernel modules in this regard, without having to write special
> probing for this subsystem in the userland and special handling for loading
> these modules.  That's a pretty big win for maintainability.
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2009-04-15 21:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-03-18  1:36 [PATCH 0/3] scsi_dh: Make scsi device handler modules automatically inserted Chandra Seetharaman
2009-03-18  1:36 ` [PATCH 1/3] scsi_dh: Add modalias support for SCSI targets Chandra Seetharaman
2009-03-18 13:44   ` Konrad Rzeszutek
2009-03-18 14:02     ` James Bottomley
2009-03-18 14:36       ` Konrad Rzeszutek
2009-03-18 18:30   ` Kay Sievers
2009-03-18 19:18     ` Chandra Seetharaman
2009-03-19 18:54       ` Chandra Seetharaman
2009-03-20 18:24         ` Peter Jones
2009-03-23 22:13           ` Chandra Seetharaman
2009-04-03 22:43             ` Chandra Seetharaman
2009-04-07 20:59               ` James Bottomley
2009-04-07 23:41                 ` Chandra Seetharaman
2009-04-08 15:08                 ` Peter Jones
2009-04-15 21:52                   ` Chandra Seetharaman [this message]
2009-04-16 15:18                     ` Hannes Reinecke
2009-04-07 23:22               ` Hannes Reinecke
2009-04-07 23:50                 ` Chandra Seetharaman
2009-04-08  5:15                   ` Kay Sievers
2009-04-08 19:13                     ` Chandra Seetharaman
2009-03-18 18:47   ` James Bottomley
2009-03-18 19:12     ` Chandra Seetharaman
2009-03-18 20:09       ` James Bottomley
2009-03-18 20:24         ` Kay Sievers
2009-03-18 20:26           ` James Bottomley
2009-03-18 20:59         ` Chandra Seetharaman
2009-03-20 17:41         ` Peter Jones
2009-03-18  1:36 ` [PATCH 2/3] scsi_dh: Change scsi device handler modules to utilize modalias Chandra Seetharaman
2009-03-18 13:46   ` Konrad Rzeszutek
2009-03-18 15:43     ` Stefan Richter
2009-03-18 17:25       ` Chandra Seetharaman
2009-03-18 17:50         ` Stefan Richter
2009-03-18 18:18           ` Kay Sievers
2009-03-18 19:44             ` Stefan Richter
2009-03-18 18:50           ` Chandra Seetharaman
2009-03-18 19:46             ` Stefan Richter
2009-03-18  1:36 ` [PATCH 3/3] scsi_dh: Workaround a race condition in module insertion Chandra Seetharaman
2009-03-18 11:31 ` [PATCH 0/3] scsi_dh: Make scsi device handler modules automatically inserted Hannes Reinecke
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-04-27 18:06 Chandra Seetharaman
2009-04-27 18:06 ` [PATCH 1/3] scsi_dh: Add modalias support for SCSI targets Chandra Seetharaman

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1239832363.1196.5.camel@chandra-ubuntu \
    --to=sekharan@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
    --cc=hare@suse.de \
    --cc=kay.sievers@vrfy.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=michaelc@cs.wisc.edu \
    --cc=pjones@redhat.com \
    --cc=sekharan@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.