On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 10:14 -0400, Peter Jones wrote: > On 07/17/2009 12:19 AM, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 18:01 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > >> On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 01:16 +0000, James Bottomley wrote: > >>> On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 13:33 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > >>>> James, > >>>> > >>>> Please let us know which way you want us to proceed ? > >>> Yes, propose a mechanism that keeps manual binding but allows the dm-mp > >>> user an exception. > >> James, this is the current behavior. We wanted to make the binding > >> automatic, hence the patches. > > > > OK, well then no ... I'm not breaking an unknown number of enterprise > > configurations by forcing a binding where none is wanted or needed. > > Find a way to do what you want while not breaking anyone else. > > And what about the patch I sent you that makes the uevent modalias > change depend on a config option? You've still not commented on it. A config option isn't right, but a runtime one might be if nothing else comes along, I suppose. The uevent modalias still needs to go via multiple binding. 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
