From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: SCSI BLIST_*, sdev_bflags, and scsi_device flags Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:30:46 -0700 Message-ID: <20060210153046.GC12822@parisc-linux.org> References: <20060210103634.GB27401@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:1417 "EHLO palinux.hppa") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932134AbWBJPar (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:30:47 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Stern Cc: Christoph Hellwig , SCSI development list On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:27:21AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Do we need per-device blist flags at all? I suspect just having them in > > the target should be enough. > > Some of the blist flags clearly are per-device: BLIST_KEY, BLIST_ISROM, > BLIST_NOSTARTONADD, BLIST_MS_SKIP_PAGE_08, BLIST_MS_SKIP_PAGE_3F, > BLIST_USE_10_BYTE_MS, BLIST_MS_192_BYTES_FOR_3F, BLIST_NOT_LOCKABLE, > BLIST_NO_ULD_ATTACH, BLIST_RETRY_HWERROR. There are a few others I'm not > certain about. Why are these clearly per LUN? I agree some of them are debatable, but most of them indicate a general lack-of-scsi-spec compliance on the part of the manufacturer and hence apply to the piece of hardware (== scsi target) rather than just one of the LUNs in it.