From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chandra Seetharaman Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] scsi_dh: Make scsi device handler modules automatically inserted Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:01:16 -0700 Message-ID: <1247792476.670.20.camel@chandra-ubuntu> References: <20090427180609.22758.93035.sendpatchset@chandra-ubuntu> <4A369320.2080202@redhat.com> <1245365306.4286.27.camel@mulgrave.site> <4A3BDFE8.3090003@redhat.com> <4A44D37A.10903@redhat.com> <1246986723.6277.63.camel@mulgrave.site> <4A538B13.8050809@redhat.com> <1246990464.6277.74.camel@mulgrave.site> <1246995401.9541.15.camel@chandra-ubuntu> <20090708155808.GA31204@infradead.org> <4A54E65D.8050706@redhat.com> <1247690016.9792.5.camel@chandra-ubuntu> <1247706999.8632.8.camel@mulgrave.site> Reply-To: sekharan@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from e37.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.158]:60574 "EHLO e37.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933111AbZGQBAc (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:00:32 -0400 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e37.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n6H0vONp012943 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:57:24 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n6H0wCJ9221098 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:58:12 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n6H0wAq8014595 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:58:11 -0600 In-Reply-To: <1247706999.8632.8.camel@mulgrave.site> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, michaelc@cs.wisc.edu, hare@suse.de, Peter Jones On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 01:16 +0000, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 13:33 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > James, > > > > Please let us know which way you want us to proceed ? > > Yes, propose a mechanism that keeps manual binding but allows the dm-mp > user an exception. James, this is the current behavior. We wanted to make the binding automatic, hence the patches. > For the actual binding I still think it should be > part of generic driver multiple binding. I don't quite understand what does this mean. Can you elaborate, please. > > > We have been pursuing this for more than three months now. > > Well, the concerns I flagged at the outset haven't really changed ... > they just seem finally to be better understood. > > James > >