Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:44:01 -0600 From: "Kenneth D. Merry" <ken@kdm.org> 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: <20020923144400.A38337@panzer.kdm.org> In-Reply-To: <20020923132415.A24262@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu>; from brooks@one-eyed-alien.net on Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 01:24:15PM -0700 References: <200209230456.g8N4uZSW013370@freefall.freebsd.org> <20020923132415.A24262@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 13:24:15 -0700, 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. > > 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. A SCSI_DELAY setting of 0 was legal before your commit, it just meant "set this to the minimum value". So, this just ends up making the semantics the same as before. Ken -- Kenneth Merry ken@kdm.org 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?20020923144400.A38337>