* verbose argument to sd_synchronize_cache
@ 2002-10-27 16:28 Christoph Hellwig
2002-10-27 16:35 ` James Bottomley
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2002-10-27 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James Bottomley; +Cc: linux-scsi
sd_synchronize_cache() is always called with verbose=1, so this argument
should go away. But do we really want to be that verbose here? IMHO
we should remove the argumet and the printks..
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: verbose argument to sd_synchronize_cache
2002-10-27 16:28 verbose argument to sd_synchronize_cache Christoph Hellwig
@ 2002-10-27 16:35 ` James Bottomley
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: James Bottomley @ 2002-10-27 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: James Bottomley, linux-scsi
hch@infradead.org said:
> sd_synchronize_cache() is always called with verbose=1, so this
> argument should go away. But do we really want to be that verbose
> here? IMHO we should remove the argumet and the printks..
It can take a while to synchronise the cache on monster arrays, so printing
something while we do it on shutdown is a good idea (unless you want the "my
machine takes ages to shut down" type of bug reports).
The non-verbose part was for exposing the synchronise via an ioctl (which I
haven't got around to writing yet) on the grounds that anyone doing the ioctl
knows what's going on and doesn't need a kernel message telling them.
James
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-10-27 16:35 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-10-27 16:28 verbose argument to sd_synchronize_cache Christoph Hellwig
2002-10-27 16:35 ` James Bottomley
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox