Received: from PACIFIC-CARRIER-ANNEX.MIT.EDU by po7.MIT.EDU (5.61/4.7) id AA00686; Sun, 31 Dec 95 17:24:37 EST
Received: from pain.lcs.mit.edu by MIT.EDU with SMTP
	id AA03648; Sun, 31 Dec 95 17:24:31 EST
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pain.lcs.mit.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) id QAA29952; Sun, 31 Dec 1995 16:54:07 -0500
Received: from cs1.boston.deshaw.com by pain.lcs.mit.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA29941 for <netbsd-developers@NetBSD.ORG>; Sun, 31 Dec 1995 16:52:51 -0500
Received: (from mycroft@localhost)
 by cs1.boston.deshaw.com (8.6.12/8.7.Alpha.4/1.33.kim) id QAA12652;
 Sun, 31 Dec 1995 16:52:48 -0500
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 16:52:48 -0500
From: Charles Hannum <Charles-Hannum@deshaw.com>
Message-Id: <199512312152.QAA12652@cs1.boston.deshaw.com>
To: thorpej@nas.nasa.gov
Cc: netbsd-developers@NetBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199512310154.RAA10655@lestat.nas.nasa.gov> (message from Jason Thorpe on Sat, 30 Dec 1995 17:54:08 -0800)
Subject: Re: gratuitous change to sys/scsi/cd.c
Sender: owner-netbsd-developers@NetBSD.ORG
Precedence: first-class
X-Loop: netbsd-developers@NetBSD.ORG


   What was the rationale behind this?

   ----------------------------
   revision 1.77
   date: 1995/11/11 20:07:57;  author: mycroft;  state: Exp;  lines: +2 -13
   Remove the gratuitous code to check for a disc at boot time.
   ----------------------------

First of all, this is *not* a proper place to do such a test.  It is
the responsibility of the probe routine only to identify that a device
is present, and find out enough information to talk to it.  Indeed,
I'd argue that the corresponding code in the `sd' and `st' drivers
(and others) should also be removed, or at least moved to mount time,
where it rechecks the media anyway.  (In fact, I would have done this,
except that it would have broken some klugy installation scripts.)

Secondly, there are many buggy drives for which it fails, and it's
silly for users to think our kernel is broken because it doesn't see a
disc in their drive.

   I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I found that check somewhat 
   useful.  If there are no real objections, I'd like to back this change 
   out.  (It seems rather silly to have removed it in the first place...)

Please note that's a rather insulting way to ask a question.

