Re: Asynchronous scsi scanning

[Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>]

On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 10:58:05AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> [ BTW, this is the last time I'll try explaining this to you. ]

Oh good.  Perhaps you can just drop the idea entirely and give up?

> The one-line patch you're suggesting *would*not*allow* one to use the async
> scanning _at_all_. If one really wants to use async scanning reliably (even 
> in
> the future, as it can be turned on at boot-time later, like you very well 
> know),
> that module *must* be built. Making it user-visible and/or optional would 
> *not*
> be a solution but a *problem*. What I have been suggesting is *not* to make
> this *dummy module* user-visible and/or optional but to _not_ use this
> *dummy module* for this purpose in the first place.

That's simply not true.  There are other ways of using async scanning
reliably -- as Peter Jones pointed out.  If you're relying on the earlier
semantics of "modprobe returned, therefore scanning is complete", then
yes, it's unreliable.  But if you're using kevents/udev/etc to find out
when devices have been discovered, then it's not unreliable.

> [ This time, I don't see the subject changing, nor a "change in the general
> direction of the thread blah blah blah", and still you feel compelled to not
> maintain the CC list. Wow. ]

I see trimming the CC list as a courtesy to those who've had enough of
this pointless thread landing in their mailboxes.