From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [PATCH] SCSI hotplug support Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 08:40:06 -0700 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <200210151540.g9FFe6N02667@localhost.localdomain> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: (from root@localhost) by pogo.mtv1.steeleye.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22849 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 08:40:11 -0700 In-Reply-To: Message from Oliver Neukum of "Tue, 15 Oct 2002 17:19:27 +0200." <200210151719.27064.oliver@neukum.name> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Oliver Neukum Cc: Doug Ledford , andersen@codepoet.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org dledford@redhat.com said: > Now, please, someone tell me why everyone is whining about user space > doing so little to accomplish what the much larger patch that was > posted does in kernel space? My point is, and was, that since we need the > user space manager *anyway* to handle things the kernel will *never* oliver@neukum.name said: > We don't need it. We may want to have it. It works without it, not as > well, but it works. But this is the philosophy difference. I see hotplug as a replacement for kernel code. I also see it as a way of ditching all the cross subsystem glue in the kernel and having the hotplug manager work out what should go on. Duplicating the hotplug code in the kernel just in case the user isn't using hotplug seems to me to be a waste of effort and an unwanted addition of complexity. The point also is that Eric wants this code to cope with the case where a drive is added or removed from the firewire chassis *after* the system has been initiallised. By very definition this is a hotplug event. It's not unreasonable to require the user to do something manual if they choose not to use the hotplug infrastructure. James