From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFC] scsi host sysfs support again [0/4] Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 17:41:52 +0100 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030507174152.A31719@infradead.org> References: <20030505083315.GB8416@beaverton.ibm.com> <20030505093833.A13506@infradead.org> <20030505094818.GH8416@beaverton.ibm.com> <20030505111735.A16914@infradead.org> <20030506010521.GB3852@beaverton.ibm.com> <20030507164427.A28899@infradead.org> <20030507161546.GA3368@beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from carisma.slowglass.com ([195.224.96.167]:45069 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264038AbTEGQ3S (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2003 12:29:18 -0400 Received: from hch by phoenix.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 19DRzM-0008Fm-00 for linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 07 May 2003 17:41:52 +0100 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030507161546.GA3368@beaverton.ibm.com>; from andmike@us.ibm.com on Wed, May 07, 2003 at 09:15:46AM -0700 List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 09:15:46AM -0700, Mike Anderson wrote: > No I did not read that you where disagreeing I was just indicating that > I was not calling any sysfs functions from scsi_register do that the > Scsi_Host's struct device and struct class where not initialized until > scsi_add_host. > > After reading you mail the other day I believe a better model would be > to split the device_register using the device_initialize and device_add > functions. This will mean that after the return of scsi_register > (scsi_alloc_host) that refcount will be 1 and the Scsi_Host struct is > ready to be used. That actually sounds like a good idea.