From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] pull scsi_scan_host out of scsi_add_host Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:23:16 +0200 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030708082316.GA13384@lst.de> References: <20030707143056.GA1177@lst.de> <20030708080334.GA2451@beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([212.34.189.10]:52406 "EHLO mail.lst.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265525AbTGHIIt (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jul 2003 04:08:49 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030708080334.GA2451@beaverton.ibm.com> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James.Bottomley@steeleye.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 01:03:35AM -0700, Mike Anderson wrote: > Would we want to make a symmetric interface and pull the > unscan out of scsi_remove_host also? It would make sense if we something like an unscan. But the closest thing to an unscan is scsi_forget_host which just releases the scsi_device structures. Given that we can't free a host without releasing the devices first and scsi_forget_host is a noop if shost->my_devices is empty I don't this makes gains anything.