On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 09:28:28AM -0700, Scott Long wrote: > Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >In message <42481C66.7090409_at_samsco.org>, Scott writes: > > > > > >>So are you saying that an async notification mechanism needs to be > >>invented for SCSI, or that all SCSI users should be required to use > >>SES or SAFTE enclosures for all SCSI devices, or that we should be like > >>Windows and constantly poll the devices? > > > > > >I don't care _how_ we make CAM/SCSI behave like the users expect. > > > > Well, I waved my hands at it for a few minutes, but nothing changed... > hmm.... =-) > > My question to you was partially rhetorical, since a good solution just > doesn't exist. Even the polling option isn't good because it will > disrupt things like burning CD's; in Windows, the CD burning software > packages that are out there go through an impressive set of hoops to > deal with this polling problem. What exactly is the problem with burning and polling? I personaly could easily imagine a kernel thread that polls devices e.g. once every second. It is out of question IMO that we need an async change notification framework somehow. -- B.Walter BWCT http://www.bwct.de bernd_at_bwct.de info_at_bwct.deReceived on Mon Mar 28 2005 - 14:49:45 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:30 UTC