From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFC] IBM Power RAID driver (ipr) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:02:48 +0000 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040122140248.C11283@infradead.org> References: <40085EDA.4010802@us.ibm.com> <20040119183400.A4182@infradead.org> <400C3E70.9040702@us.ibm.com> <20040120133858.A15671@infradead.org> <400D5A28.1000301@us.ibm.com> <20040120180151.A18616@infradead.org> <400EE5E6.9080709@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from phoenix.infradead.org ([213.86.99.234]:23049 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264539AbUAVOCu (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:02:50 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <400EE5E6.9080709@us.ibm.com>; from brking@us.ibm.com on Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 02:49:42PM -0600 List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Brian King Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 02:49:42PM -0600, Brian King wrote: > How about a flag in the scsi_device struct that an LLD could set in > slave_configure, which would prevent upper layer drivers from binding > to it? I'm not that happy about this. But the other solutions I could think of are ven worse. > Then these devices could be found through the normal scsi scan > and would have nice sysfs entries and sg devices for them. Not sure what > we would call the flag... psuedo_device, fake_device? ghost? hidden? Could you cook up a patch?