On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 04:57:52AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote: > [ I appreciate you forked the thread and gave it a better subject name, > it would be better still if you could maintain the original CC list, > thanks. ] I removed the people I didn't think needed to be on the Cc list any more, since I was changing the direction of the thread. > On 5/15/07, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> >It's easy to suggest a sysfs attribute. What you've failed to do is > >> >suggest the pathname of the sysfs attribute, > > /sys/module/scsi_mod/parameters/wait_for_async_scans (?) > Doesn't really matter, but perhaps who created the sysfs namespace > for scsi in /sys/module/scsi_mod/... could be the best person to suggest. No, it does matter. Your suggestion doesn't work, because /sys/module/scsi_mod/parameters/ belongs to the module code. To create a new attribute there, you use the module_param() code -- and there's no way to have code called when your parameter is changed. > >Why? You're not forced to load the module. In what way does it > >inconvenience you? Nobody's making you run 'make modules_install'. > >I often forget to myself. > > OK, I'll get really silly here myself. I don't want even that half a second > of > overhead when that module is being _built_ (during make modules), not > the overhead of copying / installing at modules_install time. You're claiming that 0.7 second (I just timed it on a 3 year old laptop) *inconveniences* you? > I apologize if I sounded impolite, and I certainly don't want to act > demanding / difficult or anything, but it's just that doing this via a sysfs > attribute (or hey, anything else!) sounds a better way to tackle this than > this module thing. IMHO, at least. This whole thing is such a tempest in a teapot. I really don't understand why you care so much. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
