public inbox for linux-scsi@vger.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox