From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Doug Ledford Subject: Re: [PATCH] SCSI hotplug support Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 14:34:05 -0400 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20021015183405.GB4391@redhat.com> References: <200210142107.g9EL7IX04354@localhost.localdomain> <200210150019.53689.oliver@neukum.name> <20021015002252.GE1274@redhat.com> <200210150953.29905.oliver@neukum.name> <20021015143533.GA4288@redhat.com> <20021015174708.GA15778@codepoet.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021015174708.GA15778@codepoet.org> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Erik Andersen Cc: Oliver Neukum , James Bottomley , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 11:47:08AM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote: > On Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 10:35:33AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > > 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 > > Much larger patch? If you look closely, that patch is actually > very small. It simply moves the code already the proc/scsi/scsi > "scsi add-single-device" and "scsi remove-single-device" handlers > into standalone functions. There is actually not so much as a > single line of new code... Well, there is to. You then export the functions. Aside from the export and the intended use, I'm actually all for the patch and moving that code into separate functions. I just don't want those functions called from all over the place. -- Doug Ledford 919-754-3700 x44233 Red Hat, Inc. 1801 Varsity Dr. Raleigh, NC 27606