From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: Asynchronous scsi scanning Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 19:51:15 +0100 Message-ID: <20070517185115.GA13207@infradead.org> References: <20070515120228.GI10562@parisc-linux.org> <4649E03A.1090004@simon.arlott.org.uk> <20070515172905.GJ10562@parisc-linux.org> <20070516025121.GK10562@parisc-linux.org> <20070517172023.GL10562@parisc-linux.org> <20070517182414.GA12170@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:55529 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756246AbXEQSv1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 May 2007 14:51:27 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Satyam Sharma Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Benjamin LaHaise , Matthew Wilcox , Simon Arlott , James Bottomley , Dave Jones , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, kernel-packagers@vger.kernel.org, "Robert P. J. Day" On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:17:40AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote: > However, Ben does have a point that we shouldn't force those > using SCSI (and wishing to use the new async scanning > feature) to depend on and use sysfs too yes, we do. an no, procfs is a much worse filesystem to depend on for drivers. if people don't want sysfs they can either do the synchronous scan or do their own scan in userspace.