From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: Asynchronous scsi scanning Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 16:28:34 -0700 Message-ID: <464A4222.4000208@linux.intel.com> References: <1179073116.3723.45.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <1179153096.3703.23.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <17841.simon.1179228389@5ec7c279.invalid> <20070515120228.GI10562@parisc-linux.org> <4649E03A.1090004@simon.arlott.org.uk> <20070515172905.GJ10562@parisc-linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga07.intel.com ([143.182.124.22]:4968 "EHLO azsmga101.ch.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755883AbXEOX3r (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 May 2007 19:29:47 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Satyam Sharma Cc: 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" Satyam Sharma wrote: >> > >semantics of it (read-only? read-write? write-only? > > Well, it _has_ to be write, don't really care if it's read-write or > write-only. I would still prefer read-write, but we can go ahead with > write-only too. It doesn't really matter, does it? just to be devils advocate... it should be a read that returns when done, and that can be polled