On 5/17/07, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 10:43:06PM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote: > >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. (thanks, Roland for pointing out that I'm incorrect about code being called)
Come up with a sensible suggestion, and I'll listen to you. Code isn't the issue. API is the issue.
Well, that itself is a suggestion.
> Ok, thanks for pointing out that /sys/module/scsi_mod/parameters/wait... > is _wrong_. Could you suggest something that would be _right_? No, I can't, which is why I find it hard to like the idea of "use sysfs". I have no particular love for using a module like this, but my preferred way (a new verb for /proc/scsi/scsi) isn't liked by others.
Another command to /proc/scsi/scsi isn't a bad thought at all, considering we're not _inventing_ a *new* /proc/not-related-to-processes interface, but simply extending one that already exists. But then James / others are also somewhat justified in shooting that down. I bet a lot of people would find that even worse than this whole module affair. - 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
