On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:49:52PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:45:24PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > But also, the sysfs with over 4,000 (and higher) devices was
> > specifically checked by OSDL (actually as part of the CGL testing) some
> > of the Manoj changes
Peter Jones wrote:
> So really, either way means we need to update the tools. It also
> doesn't really solve the problem -- when I insert "usb-storage", the
> SCSI scan may still finish while we're still enumerating the bus for USB
> devices. (I'd be willing to believe I'm wrong about this spec
On 5/18/07, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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?
Well, I do plan to, at least as far as convi
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
On 5/18/07, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:43:26PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:39:54PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:34:40AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > > Hmmm, actually those other users could
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:39:54PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:34:40AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > Hmmm, actually those other users could easily write and maintain
> > a 20-line patch that does the wait for async scans thing for them
> > using /proc/scsi/scsi in a
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 12:26:29PM +0100, Simon Arlott wrote:
I've already suggested a sysfs attribute - or something equivalent - would
be much better. It's just one function that a user might want to run multiple
times (e.g. after adding scsi devices?) - why should loadin
Dave Jones wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:30:43PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:43:26PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> > On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:39:54PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:34:40AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > >
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:30:43PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:43:26PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> > On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:39:54PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:34:40AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > > > Hmmm, actually tho
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:43:26PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:39:54PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:34:40AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > > Hmmm, actually those other users could easily write and maintain
> > > a 20-line patch that do
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:39:54PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:34:40AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > Hmmm, actually those other users could easily write and maintain
> > a 20-line patch that does the wait for async scans thing for them
> > using /proc/scsi/scsi in an
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:34:40AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> Hmmm, actually those other users could easily write and maintain
> a 20-line patch that does the wait for async scans thing for them
> using /proc/scsi/scsi in any case.
How about the three users who're bothered by this extra module
On 5/18/07, Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:17:40AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> However, Ben does have a point that we shouldn't force those
> using SCSI (and wishing to use the new async scanning
> feature) to depend on and use sysfs too
yes, we do. an
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:17:40AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> However, Ben does have a point that we shouldn't force those
> using SCSI (and wishing to use the new async scanning
> feature) to depend on and use sysfs too
yes, we do. an no, procfs is a much worse filesystem to depend
on for dri
Hi Christoph,
On 5/17/07, Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 11:11:10PM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> Another command to /proc/scsi/scsi isn't a bad thought at all, considering
Yes it is. /proc/scsi/scsi is a horrible interface and deprecated since
the start o
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 11:11:10PM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> Another command to /proc/scsi/scsi isn't a bad thought at all, considering
Yes it is. /proc/scsi/scsi is a horrible interface and deprecated since
the start of the 2.6 series.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubsc
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:45:24PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> But also, the sysfs with over 4,000 (and higher) devices was
> specifically checked by OSDL (actually as part of the CGL testing) some
> of the Manoj changes (for unpinning entries etc) were needed to get it
> to function, but as of
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 13:32 -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 04:57:52AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> >
> > echo 1 > /sys/module/scsi_mod/.../wait_for_async_scans
> >
> > somewhere in some script. In fact, the latter method seems simpler,
> > saner, better (in every which
On 5/17/07, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 10:43:06PM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> >No, it does matter. Your suggestion doesn't work, because
> >/sys/module/scsi_mod/parameters/ belongs to the module code. To create
> >a new attribute there, you use the modul
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 04:57:52AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
> echo 1 > /sys/module/scsi_mod/.../wait_for_async_scans
>
> somewhere in some script. In fact, the latter method seems simpler,
> saner, better (in every which way)!
Please don't force sysfs on people. Just watch how it keels ove
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 10:43:06PM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> >No, it does matter. Your suggestion doesn't work, because
> >/sys/module/scsi_mod/parameters/ belongs to the module code. To create
> >a new attribute there, you use the module_param() code -- and there's
> >no way to have code cal
Hi Matthew,
On 5/16/07, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> /sys/module/scsi_mod/parameters/wait_for_async_scans (?)
> Doesn't really matter, but perhaps who created the sysfs namespace
> for scsi in /sys/module/scsi_mod/... could be the best person to suggest.
No, it does matter.
> No, it does matter. Your suggestion doesn't work, because
> /sys/module/scsi_mod/parameters/ belongs to the module code. To create
> a new attribute there, you use the module_param() code -- and there's
> no way to have code called when your parameter is changed.
If I'm not misunderstandin
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 04:57:52AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> [ I appreciate you forked the thread and gave it a better subject name,
> it would be better still if you could maintain the original CC list,
> thanks. ]
I removed the people I didn't think needed to be on the Cc list any more,
sin
On 5/16/07, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
>> > >semantics of it (read-only? read-write? write-only?
>
> Well, it _has_ to be write, don't really care if it's read-write or
> write-only. I would still prefer read-write, but we can go ahead with
> write-only too
Satyam Sharma wrote:
> >semantics of it (read-only? read-write? write-only?
Well, it _has_ to be write, don't really care if it's read-write or
write-only. I would still prefer read-write, but we can go ahead with
write-only too. It doesn't really matter, does it?
just to be devils advocate
Hi,
[ I appreciate you forked the thread and gave it a better subject name,
it would be better still if you could maintain the original CC list, thanks. ]
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 12:26:29PM +0100, Simon Arlott wrote:
I've already suggested a sysfs attribute - or something equivalent - would
be
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 05:30:50PM +0100, Simon Arlott wrote:
> On 15/05/07 13:02, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >It's easy to suggest a sysfs attribute. What you've failed to do is
> >suggest the pathname of the sysfs attribute, the contents of it, or the
> >semantics of it (read-only? read-write? wr
On 15/05/07 13:02, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 12:26:29PM +0100, Simon Arlott wrote:
I've already suggested a sysfs attribute - or something equivalent - would
be much better. It's just one function that a user might want to run multiple
times (e.g. after adding scsi devices?)
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 12:26:29PM +0100, Simon Arlott wrote:
> I've already suggested a sysfs attribute - or something equivalent - would
> be much better. It's just one function that a user might want to run multiple
> times (e.g. after adding scsi devices?) - why should loading a module be used
30 matches
Mail list logo
