From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] scsi_dh: Make scsi device handler modules automatically inserted Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:45:29 -0500 Message-ID: <1247849129.3911.5.camel@mulgrave.site> 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> <1247792476.670.20.camel@chandra-ubuntu> <1247804349.6606.631.camel@mulgrave.site> <4A608744.9020002@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:47151 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964848AbZGQQpd (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:45:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4A608744.9020002@redhat.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Jones Cc: sekharan@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Christoph Hellwig , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, michaelc@cs.wisc.edu, hare@suse.de On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 10:14 -0400, Peter Jones wrote: > On 07/17/2009 12:19 AM, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 18:01 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > >> 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. > > > > OK, well then no ... I'm not breaking an unknown number of enterprise > > configurations by forcing a binding where none is wanted or needed. > > Find a way to do what you want while not breaking anyone else. > > And what about the patch I sent you that makes the uevent modalias > change depend on a config option? You've still not commented on it. A config option isn't right, but a runtime one might be if nothing else comes along, I suppose. The uevent modalias still needs to go via multiple binding. James