Re: scsi_wait_scan Kconfig option

Re: scsi_wait_scan Kconfig option

[Nick Warne]

Hi Matthew,

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:47:56 -0700
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 07:39:53PM +0000, Nick Warne wrote:
> > I try not to build a modular kernel, but only have modules ON due to
> > nVidia (sigh).  So I was semi-surprised when I saw the
> > scsi_wait_scan module being built again, yet NO WHERE in menuconfig
> > is it present to turn OFF.  Even if I hand edit .config, make puts
> > it back again...
> 
> You have modules on ... which means you might decide to load a scsi
> driver as a module.  Maybe one that isn't part of the source tree.
> The scsi_wait_scan module is only 1500 bytes.  Apart from a sense of
> ideological purity (odd in someone who chooses to use nVidia rather
> than, say, nv or nouveau), this really isn't a problem.

Alas the card I have isn't supported, but that debate isn't for here.

OK, I only have SCSI set for USB storage etc.  I find it strange that
this one and only option in the whole of Kconfig builds a module, and
yet, even though I know I will never need it, I can't stop it.

Surely if people build their own kernels, they should know (and) be
allowed to configure such options?

Nick 
-- 
Free Software Foundation Associate Member 5508

Re: scsi_wait_scan Kconfig option

[Nick Warne]

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:11:44 +0100
Clemens Koller <clemens.koller@anagramm.de> wrote:

> Nick Warne schrieb:
> > I am bringing this up again - primarily as I forgot about it after
> > patching my build tree ages ago:
> > 
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/27/68

Subject: Re: Fw: scsi_wait_scan Kconfig option
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:47:56 -0700

On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 07:39:53PM +0000, Nick Warne wrote:
> I try not to build a modular kernel, but only have modules ON due to
> nVidia (sigh).  So I was semi-surprised when I saw the scsi_wait_scan
> module being built again, yet NO WHERE in menuconfig is it present to
> turn OFF.  Even if I hand edit .config, make puts it back again...  

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:47:56 -0700
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> wrote:

> You have modules on ... which means you might decide to load a scsi
> driver as a module.  Maybe one that isn't part of the source tree.
> The scsi_wait_scan module is only 1500 bytes.  Apart from a sense of
> ideological purity (odd in someone who chooses to use nVidia rather
> than, say, nv or nouveau), this really isn't a problem.
> 
> Please see the patch I sent some days ago, which does the very
> same thing: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119677244318528&w=2
> 
> True...

Well, that's two of us would that like to be able to stop it
building :-)

Nick
-- 
Free Software Foundation Associate Member 5508

Re: scsi_wait_scan Kconfig option

[Stefan Richter]

> Clemens Koller <clemens.koller@anagramm.de> wrote:
>> Nick Warne schrieb:
>>> I am bringing this up again - primarily as I forgot about it after
>>> patching my build tree ages ago:
>>>
>>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/27/68

>> Please see the patch I sent some days ago, which does the very
>> same thing: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119677244318528&w=2

Besides, in order for scsi_wait_scan to work, drivers need to support it
explicitly, don't they?  If so, simply kill the "default m" from config
SCSI_WAIT_SCAN and let any driver which is integrated with it select it.

(Not that I'm a friend of select, but here is a case where it won't hurt
too much.)
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== ==-- -=---
http://arcgraph.de/sr/

Re: scsi_wait_scan Kconfig option

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 10:21:11PM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Besides, in order for scsi_wait_scan to work, drivers need to support it
> explicitly, don't they?  If so, simply kill the "default m" from config
> SCSI_WAIT_SCAN and let any driver which is integrated with it select it.

No.  All drivers which call scsi_scan_host() support it.

-- 
Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."