Re: Asynchronous scsi scanning

["Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@gmail.com>]

> On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:39:54PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:34:40AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > > Hmmm, actually those other users could easily write and maintain
> > > a 20-line patch that does the wait for async scans thing for them
> > > using /proc/scsi/scsi in any case.
> >
> > How about the three users who're bothered by this extra module being
> > built maintain a one-line patch to Kconfig and leave well enough alone?

So you expect users bothered with this to actually get on lkml / write to it
and complain about this? And because not everybody else who is
disgusted with this user-invisible-default-m-module-way-of-solving-this-problem
(when it shouldn't be a module at all) is doing that, it's just "the three"?

It is *shocking* / funny how you *still* want to defend that:

static int __init wait_scan_init(void)
{
	scsi_complete_async_scans();
	return 0;
/* BTW this could've been return scsi_complete_async_scans();
 * I see scsi_complete_async_scans() never fails, but still. */
}
late_initcall(wait_scan_init);

deserves/must be a separate module, and that doing:

config SCSI_WAIT_SCAN
	tristate
	default m

is the best way to solve this !!!

In any case, firstly, I'm not a user of SCSI at all. I'm still
interested in this,
but because for me (like I've said twice already) this is simply a (trivial,
perhaps) matter of doing something in the kernel in a better/proper way,
than what is being done currently.

It's also somewhat a matter of *taste* (and hence subjective), if you
_still_ don't get it, Matthew, then there's no point continuing this thread
and trying to convince you ad infinitum.

On 5/18/07, Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org> wrote:
> The module has an added bonus that it doesn't require any new tools to
> make work.  Doing it via sysfs/procfs means a new rev of whatever tool
> generates the boot initrd, plus fixing up boot scripts.  Loading a module
> can be done via a simple option to the existing boot tools.

I do not expect the alternative ways to change this that we've discussed
so far to necessitate any major "fixing up", but yeah a minor touch-up
would clearly be required.