On Sat, 2007-05-26 at 18:06 -0600, Grant Grundler wrote: > On Sat, May 26, 2007 at 02:50:14PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > > This solution is still as wrong as it was the last three times it was > > submitted to linux-scsi: > > > > http://marc.info/?t=117906989600001 > > http://marc.info/?t=117926627700012 > > http://marc.info/?t=117923062000004 > > ugh...sorry. I should have looked first. > > > A better, but still not quite right fix is here: > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=117995785931981 > > Yes, I like this a lot better too. > But I'm failing to understanding why "late_initcall" isn't ok. > I was expecting all drivers to have registered with scsi subsystem > in their module_init() calls and have the scans get kicked off > at that point. Further, I assumed "late_initcall" gets called > after "init" list is processed. What am I missing? Actually, it's a thinko on my part ... I thought late_initcall() and module_init() are the same level, and hence this would be link order dependent. Actually that's only true in the modular case, so the patch is fine ... I'll put it in. James - 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
