On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 13:11 -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:29 PM, James Bottomley > <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > In the long game, though this whole debate is moot: setups with hard > >> > wired start times adhere to them regardless of what the system does, so > >> > they ignore start unit commands. Systems without hard wired start times > >> > can usually be started at once, so us introducing a delay is unnecessary > >> > in either case. > >> > >> Ok, then I'll let the patch stand as is. > > > > Sounds good. > > > > James > > > > > > Well, one more chirp about this. If the user has disabled async > scanning by CONFIG_SCSI_SCAN_ASYNC=n or scsi_mod.scan != "async" then > resume should follow suit. I'll include this in the next rev. Hm, OK, if this is tied at the hip to async scanning, why do you need another async domain for it? Why not just use the current async scanning domain ... it will actually probably resolve a few nasty (but wholly manufactured) races where scanning races with suspend. 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
