Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 May 2007 18:36:48 +0530 | From | "Satyam Sharma" <> | Subject | Re: Asynchronous scsi scanning |
| |
On 5/18/07, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> wrote: > On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 09:11:58AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote: > > It's also somewhat a matter of *taste* (and hence subjective), if you > > _still_ don't get it, Matthew, then there's no point continuing this thread > > and trying to convince you ad infinitum. > > Right. It's a matter of taste. What makes you think you have taste?
Well, my stand uptil now has been to consider as many options as possible. I have certainly not married myself to just one particular way of doing this -- but I bet that the one way that I do _dislike_, the dummy module one, would not be found tasteful / best by most people around (yourself included, as you say).
> I don't think that the module solution is perfect. But abusing the > module parameters is a worse idea. sysfs just isn't a good fit for this, > according to my taste.
The whole point is to at least _consider_ other alternatives. And I've found your attitude so far to have been extremely blocking / difficult. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |