From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] LLDD dynamic scan aids Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:43:19 +0000 Message-ID: <20041118154319.GA24002@infradead.org> References: <0B1E13B586976742A7599D71A6AC733C02F282@xbl3.ma.emulex.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from phoenix.infradead.org ([81.187.226.98]:58887 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262471AbUKRPnV (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:43:21 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0B1E13B586976742A7599D71A6AC733C02F282@xbl3.ma.emulex.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James.Smart@Emulex.Com Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org > I want to check something: If you truly were probing on a per-port basis, there's no need to ever call scsi_scan_host(), which means there potentially would never be a scan where rescan=0, or that sequential probing of channels/targets occur. Is this an issue ? Don't think so. Maybe we should allow a !rescan variant of the per-target probe if you really see performance problems without, but not calling scsi_scan_host is just fine. In fact that's the reason why I separated it out from scsi_add_host. The sequential bus scan is fundamentally a SPI thing and other transports are probably better off not using it at all, e.g. IEEE1394 SBP2 and iscsi already don't call it at all.