Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:37:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: Matt Jacob <mjacob@FreeBSD.org>, scsi@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/cam/scsi scsi_all.c Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0209231333010.637-100000@beppo> In-Reply-To: <20020923132415.A24262@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 09:56:35PM -0700, Matt Jacob wrote: > > mjacob 2002/09/22 21:56:35 PDT > > > > Modified files: > > sys/cam/scsi scsi_all.c > > Log: > > A SCSI_DELAY of zero is a legitimate value to have. > > The notion that you must "always" have a delay is at best misinformed. > > This change only half fixed the check since there a boot/runtime check > at the bottom of the file in sec_scsi_delay. Oh, well, yes, I didn't catch/change this. I don't really care about what the sysctl does/claims to do- it's not really pertinent for what I was trying to get to. I just wanted to fix the compile time wrong. > > If we're going to allow 0 we should probably also allow values between > 0 and 100 as well and just toss the checks. I don't really object to > letting the user take aim at their foot if that's what they want to do. You don't understand the real issue, which is that delaying after a bus reset is an SPI-only issue, and one that is not encapsulated in any spec in any hard and fast way- so don't talk bout 'aiming at foot' unless it the thing you're aiming happens to be your nourishment mandibiles. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0209231333010.637-100000>