Re: [PATCH] minimal SAS transport class

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>]

On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 01:20:50PM -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> > What's a scsi_domain_device?  Anyway, we don't need any HCIL tuple for
> > all of the above.  SG_IO is done on a blockdevice node, /dev/sg is done
> > on a chardevice node.  Each of them are attached to a request_queue that's
> > known at the time their ->probe routine is setup - no need for HCIL here
> > _at all_.  There's actually only few userland interfaces that use HCIL
> > addressing:  the scanning through /sys/.../scan (or the old /proc/scsi/scsi
> > variant), using WWNs for FC and SAS here would be much nicer, but there's
> 
> WWNs *must not* be visible _at_all_ to anyone above the SAS layer, in the
> kernel.  That is, the transport addressing method *must not* be visible to
> SCSI Core or anyone above it, in the kernel.

Please read the sentence again.  I said accept them in the scan attribute,
that does _NOT_ mean adding knowledge to the scsi layer.  In fact if you
through the linux-scsi archives about the problems those attributes had
with the FC transport class I suggested moving the parsing of these
attributes into the transport class, which would be the preferred method
to implement this.