On 15 May 1996 02:34:10 -0400 
 mycroft@mit.edu (Charles M. Hannum) wrote:

 > > >As I've said before, the best solution is to eliminate the need for
 > > >SCSI_NOSLEEP.  This requires more restructuring of the SCSI code,
 > > >however.
 > > 
 > > Hey, that was what I said! B-) But you called my plan for doing it a hack.
 > > The plan was to basically restructure the SCSI system so that you only
 > > sleep in one place.  So, a process might sleep at the time it queued an I/O
 > > request waiting for its scsi_xfer struct to be allocated/reserved, but that
 > > once it got that structure, the controller resources would already be
 > > attached to it and no further sleeping would be needed.  This also ensures
 > > that all mallocing is done outside of an interrupt context.
 > 
 > That was *my* suggestion.  You proposed the previously mentioned hack
 > as an alternative.

...and, since I was sitting right between you ... (lessee ... a plant, 
charles, me, justin, and either gary or julian ... Herb across from 
Charles, and Jordan across from me ... I don't recall who was 
sitting on the opposite side of the table...), I can honestly say that I 
remember Charles suggesting throwing away NOSLEEP...

----save the ancient forests - http://www.bayarea.net/~thorpej/forest/----
Jason R. Thorpe                                       thorpej@nas.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center                               Home: 408.866.1912
NAS: M/S 258-6                                          Work: 415.604.0935
Moffett Field, CA 94035                                Pager: 415.428.6939