On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 14:34 -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sun, 22 Feb 2009, James Bottomley wrote: > > > OK, but resending a patch you expressed reservations about putting in > > without testing doesn't really help me. I need a way to get comfortable > > with its safety. > > > > So, what about this alternative fix instead: if the removal were moved > > to scsi_host_put(), that would address all the problems and have the > > advantage that everyone will test it ... > > I thought of doing it that way too. It has the disadvantage of > exposing part of the proc interface to userspace before the host is > registered. Now, since all we're adding is the host's directory, maybe > this doesn't matter. But it didn't seem like a good idea. It's current behaviour (and has been so for all of git history) with no reported bugs. All it's doing is creating a proc dir ... it's not exposing any interfaces within, so from a theoretical standpoint it's perfectly OK. The necessity for finding a legacy system to test was precisely because you moved it. 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
