On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 10:58:05AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote: > [ BTW, this is the last time I'll try explaining this to you. ] Oh good. Perhaps you can just drop the idea entirely and give up? > The one-line patch you're suggesting *would*not*allow* one to use the async > scanning _at_all_. If one really wants to use async scanning reliably (even > in > the future, as it can be turned on at boot-time later, like you very well > know), > that module *must* be built. Making it user-visible and/or optional would > *not* > be a solution but a *problem*. What I have been suggesting is *not* to make > this *dummy module* user-visible and/or optional but to _not_ use this > *dummy module* for this purpose in the first place. That's simply not true. There are other ways of using async scanning reliably -- as Peter Jones pointed out. If you're relying on the earlier semantics of "modprobe returned, therefore scanning is complete", then yes, it's unreliable. But if you're using kevents/udev/etc to find out when devices have been discovered, then it's not unreliable. > [ This time, I don't see the subject changing, nor a "change in the general > direction of the thread blah blah blah", and still you feel compelled to not > maintain the CC list. Wow. ] I see trimming the CC list as a courtesy to those who've had enough of this pointless thread landing in their mailboxes. - 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
