Re: [PATCHv4 1/1] SCSI: hosts: update to use ida_simple for host_no management

From: Lee Duncan <lduncan@suse.com>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Cc: emilne@redhat.com,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com>,
	Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 1/1] SCSI: hosts: update to use ida_simple for host_no management
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:24:27 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56730BEB.2050007@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <yq1r3iowk5j.fsf@sermon.lab.mkp.net>

On 12/14/2015 05:55 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>>>>>> "Hannes" == Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> writes:
> 
>>> I'm not opposed to having the module option if others (Martin?) feel
>>> they need it, but generally I think it's better to keep things as
>>> simple as possible.  So, unless there are strong objections, I would
>>> say no.
> 
> Hannes> Agreeing with Ewan here.
> 
> Hannes> I guess it's up to you to tell us whether you absolutely need a
> Hannes> module parameter ...
> 
> Still not a big ida fan but since the most people seem to be in favor of
> this I guess I'll have to bite the bullet.
> 
> I don't see much value in the module parameter since it will require
> customers to tweak their configs and reproduce. Not worth the hassle.
> 

Thank you Martin. I'll look at further cleaning up the host module, but
I think this still much better than leaving the code as is.

-- 
Lee Duncan