* SCSI BLIST_*, sdev_bflags, and scsi_device flags @ 2006-02-09 19:55 Alan Stern 2006-02-10 0:17 ` Patrick Mansfield 2006-02-10 10:36 ` Christoph Hellwig 0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Alan Stern @ 2006-02-09 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: SCSI development list A fair number of SCSI BLIST bits have duplicate entries in the scsi_device structure (in one instance the meaning is inverted): BLIST_BORKEN borken BLIST_SINGLELUN single_lun BLIST_USE_10_BYTE_MS use_10_for_ms BLIST_MS_SKIP_PAGE_08 skip_ms_page_8 BLIST_MS_SKIP_PAGE_3F skip_ms_page_3f BLIST_MS_192_BYTES_FOR_3F use_192_bytes_for_3f BLIST_RETRY_HWERROR retry_hwerror BLIST_NOT_LOCKABLE lockable BLIST_NOSTARTONADD no_start_on_add There's no good reason for this duplication. It's largely historical; at the time the device flags were added there was no way to alter the bflags value. Now there is, since sdev_bflags is stored in the scsi_device. Should we keep this duplication? Should we remove the device bits and use the sdev_bflags bitmasks instead? I presume we don't want to remove the BLIST entries because they are visible to userspace. (Although probably some of them are not used anywhere at all.) What about things like BLIST_REPORTLUN2 and BLIST_NOREPORTLUN? They don't mean anything for scsi_devices, only for scsi_targets. Nevertheless they are part of the same BLIST entries. Again, I don't see any way around that without affecting userspace. Alan Stern ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: SCSI BLIST_*, sdev_bflags, and scsi_device flags 2006-02-09 19:55 SCSI BLIST_*, sdev_bflags, and scsi_device flags Alan Stern @ 2006-02-10 0:17 ` Patrick Mansfield 2006-02-10 3:00 ` Alan Stern 2006-02-10 10:36 ` Christoph Hellwig 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Patrick Mansfield @ 2006-02-10 0:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Stern; +Cc: SCSI development list On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 02:55:15PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > A fair number of SCSI BLIST bits have duplicate entries in the scsi_device > structure (in one instance the meaning is inverted): > > BLIST_BORKEN borken > BLIST_SINGLELUN single_lun > BLIST_USE_10_BYTE_MS use_10_for_ms > BLIST_MS_SKIP_PAGE_08 skip_ms_page_8 > BLIST_MS_SKIP_PAGE_3F skip_ms_page_3f > BLIST_MS_192_BYTES_FOR_3F use_192_bytes_for_3f > BLIST_RETRY_HWERROR retry_hwerror > BLIST_NOT_LOCKABLE lockable > BLIST_NOSTARTONADD no_start_on_add > > There's no good reason for this duplication. It's largely historical; at > the time the device flags were added there was no way to alter the bflags > value. Now there is, since sdev_bflags is stored in the scsi_device. > > Should we keep this duplication? Should we remove the device bits and use > the sdev_bflags bitmasks instead? I presume we don't want to remove the > BLIST entries because they are visible to userspace. (Although probably > some of them are not used anywhere at all.) I'd like to see the bit fields replaced by sdev_flags masks. Best with a macro or macros. I don't see why you would get rid of the BLIST_NNN fields even ignoring user space and devinfo, as you can use them as the mask values. Higher level macros would be easier to replace if we ever move the flags into the starget or such. I mean if we have: #define scsi_nostartonadd(sdev) (sdev->sdev_bflags & BLIST_NOSTARTONADD) Used as: if (scsi_nostartonadd(sdev)) ... It can easily be changed in the future to: #define scsi_nostartonadd(sdev) \ (sdev->sdev_target->starget_bflags & BLIST_NOSTARTONADD) > What about things like BLIST_REPORTLUN2 and BLIST_NOREPORTLUN? They don't > mean anything for scsi_devices, only for scsi_targets. Nevertheless they > are part of the same BLIST entries. Again, I don't see any way around > that without affecting userspace. A lot of the values are really per target, maybe all of them, plus we have those bit fields that are set by the host driver (or transport). And the devinfo code treats them as per vendor + product. IMO store them all in sdev_bflags for now. For a given target is it allowed per standard, or does hardware exist that returns a different vendor and product for different LU's? I don't see anything looking at the SPC 3 for INQUIRY. It doesn't make much sense to me, but then there are some crazy devices out there. -- Patrick Mansfield ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: SCSI BLIST_*, sdev_bflags, and scsi_device flags 2006-02-10 0:17 ` Patrick Mansfield @ 2006-02-10 3:00 ` Alan Stern 2006-02-10 18:08 ` Patrick Mansfield 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Alan Stern @ 2006-02-10 3:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patrick Mansfield; +Cc: SCSI development list On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Patrick Mansfield wrote: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 02:55:15PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > > A fair number of SCSI BLIST bits have duplicate entries in the scsi_device > > structure (in one instance the meaning is inverted): > > > > BLIST_BORKEN borken > > BLIST_SINGLELUN single_lun > > BLIST_USE_10_BYTE_MS use_10_for_ms > > BLIST_MS_SKIP_PAGE_08 skip_ms_page_8 > > BLIST_MS_SKIP_PAGE_3F skip_ms_page_3f > > BLIST_MS_192_BYTES_FOR_3F use_192_bytes_for_3f > > BLIST_RETRY_HWERROR retry_hwerror > > BLIST_NOT_LOCKABLE lockable > > BLIST_NOSTARTONADD no_start_on_add > > > > There's no good reason for this duplication. It's largely historical; at > > the time the device flags were added there was no way to alter the bflags > > value. Now there is, since sdev_bflags is stored in the scsi_device. > > > > Should we keep this duplication? Should we remove the device bits and use > > the sdev_bflags bitmasks instead? I presume we don't want to remove the > > BLIST entries because they are visible to userspace. (Although probably > > some of them are not used anywhere at all.) > > I'd like to see the bit fields replaced by sdev_flags masks. Best with a > macro or macros. I don't see why you would get rid of the BLIST_NNN fields > even ignoring user space and devinfo, as you can use them as the mask > values. > > Higher level macros would be easier to replace if we ever move the flags > into the starget or such. > > I mean if we have: > > #define scsi_nostartonadd(sdev) (sdev->sdev_bflags & BLIST_NOSTARTONADD) > > Used as: > > if (scsi_nostartonadd(sdev)) > ... > > It can easily be changed in the future to: > > #define scsi_nostartonadd(sdev) \ > (sdev->sdev_target->starget_bflags & BLIST_NOSTARTONADD) Makes sense. > > What about things like BLIST_REPORTLUN2 and BLIST_NOREPORTLUN? They don't > > mean anything for scsi_devices, only for scsi_targets. Nevertheless they > > are part of the same BLIST entries. Again, I don't see any way around > > that without affecting userspace. > > A lot of the values are really per target, maybe all of them, plus we > have those bit fields that are set by the host driver (or transport). > And the devinfo code treats them as per vendor + product. Which BLIST bits exactly are per-target? Obviously everything with LUN in the name and probably the two INQUIRY flags. Anything else? > IMO store them all in sdev_bflags for now. In fact, the sdev_bflags and the starget_bflags can be copies of each other (subject to modification by the host adapter driver, of course). I think the accessors should be inline routines, so they can do type-checking on the argument (scsi_device vs. scsi_target). Do you mind if I don't bother to write setter routines? > For a given target is it allowed per standard, or does hardware exist that > returns a different vendor and product for different LU's? > > I don't see anything looking at the SPC 3 for INQUIRY. > > It doesn't make much sense to me, but then there are some crazy devices > out there. I don't know -- I've never heard of such a thing, but that doesn't mean much. Alan Stern ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: SCSI BLIST_*, sdev_bflags, and scsi_device flags 2006-02-10 3:00 ` Alan Stern @ 2006-02-10 18:08 ` Patrick Mansfield 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Patrick Mansfield @ 2006-02-10 18:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Stern; +Cc: SCSI development list On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 10:00:52PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Patrick Mansfield wrote: > Which BLIST bits exactly are per-target? Obviously everything with LUN in > the name and probably the two INQUIRY flags. Anything else? Per other posts and whether the vendor and product can change across LU's on a given target, they could all be per-target, but we can't assume that. I didn't audit the BLIST values. > > IMO store them all in sdev_bflags for now. > > In fact, the sdev_bflags and the starget_bflags can be copies of each > other (subject to modification by the host adapter driver, of course). I > think the accessors should be inline routines, so they can do > type-checking on the argument (scsi_device vs. scsi_target). I was thinking that too, but then you have to get values out of the sdev flags, and don't need starget flags except to pass bflags around during scan. So, just use a per sdev flag. > Do you mind if I don't bother to write setter routines? I don't care. hch or James? I think they would only be used by host drivers or transports, as the scan would set sdev_bflags = scsi_get_device_flags(). -- Patrick Mansfield ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: SCSI BLIST_*, sdev_bflags, and scsi_device flags 2006-02-09 19:55 SCSI BLIST_*, sdev_bflags, and scsi_device flags Alan Stern 2006-02-10 0:17 ` Patrick Mansfield @ 2006-02-10 10:36 ` Christoph Hellwig 2006-02-10 15:27 ` Alan Stern 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2006-02-10 10:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Stern; +Cc: SCSI development list On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 02:55:15PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > A fair number of SCSI BLIST bits have duplicate entries in the scsi_device > structure (in one instance the meaning is inverted): > > BLIST_BORKEN borken > BLIST_SINGLELUN single_lun > BLIST_USE_10_BYTE_MS use_10_for_ms > BLIST_MS_SKIP_PAGE_08 skip_ms_page_8 > BLIST_MS_SKIP_PAGE_3F skip_ms_page_3f > BLIST_MS_192_BYTES_FOR_3F use_192_bytes_for_3f > BLIST_RETRY_HWERROR retry_hwerror > BLIST_NOT_LOCKABLE lockable > BLIST_NOSTARTONADD no_start_on_add > > There's no good reason for this duplication. It's largely historical; at > the time the device flags were added there was no way to alter the bflags > value. Now there is, since sdev_bflags is stored in the scsi_device. > > Should we keep this duplication? Should we remove the device bits and use > the sdev_bflags bitmasks instead? I presume we don't want to remove the > BLIST entries because they are visible to userspace. (Although probably > some of them are not used anywhere at all.) > > What about things like BLIST_REPORTLUN2 and BLIST_NOREPORTLUN? They don't > mean anything for scsi_devices, only for scsi_targets. Nevertheless they > are part of the same BLIST entries. Again, I don't see any way around > that without affecting userspace. Do we need per-device blist flags at all? I suspect just having them in the target should be enough. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: SCSI BLIST_*, sdev_bflags, and scsi_device flags 2006-02-10 10:36 ` Christoph Hellwig @ 2006-02-10 15:27 ` Alan Stern 2006-02-10 15:30 ` Matthew Wilcox 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Alan Stern @ 2006-02-10 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: SCSI development list On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > What about things like BLIST_REPORTLUN2 and BLIST_NOREPORTLUN? They don't > > mean anything for scsi_devices, only for scsi_targets. Nevertheless they > > are part of the same BLIST entries. Again, I don't see any way around > > that without affecting userspace. > > 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. Alan Stern ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: SCSI BLIST_*, sdev_bflags, and scsi_device flags 2006-02-10 15:27 ` Alan Stern @ 2006-02-10 15:30 ` Matthew Wilcox 2006-02-10 15:58 ` Alan Stern 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Matthew Wilcox @ 2006-02-10 15:30 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: SCSI BLIST_*, sdev_bflags, and scsi_device flags 2006-02-10 15:30 ` Matthew Wilcox @ 2006-02-10 15:58 ` Alan Stern 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Alan Stern @ 2006-02-10 15:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthew Wilcox; +Cc: Christoph Hellwig, SCSI development list On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > 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. Isn't is possible for a target to contain LUNs made by different manufacturers, each with its own kind of lack-of-compliance? Or to put it another way... Somewhere the SCSI commands have to be decoded and carried out. With some devices that may be done at the target level, and with others it may be done at the LUN level. So any BLIST flag that affects which commands get used should be per-LUN, for greatest generality. For that matter, consider BLIST_ISROM (which means that the device is a cdrom). Obviously that applies to a LUN and not to a target; there's no requirement that all the logical units in a target be the same kind of device. Alan Stern ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-02-10 18:08 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2006-02-09 19:55 SCSI BLIST_*, sdev_bflags, and scsi_device flags Alan Stern 2006-02-10 0:17 ` Patrick Mansfield 2006-02-10 3:00 ` Alan Stern 2006-02-10 18:08 ` Patrick Mansfield 2006-02-10 10:36 ` Christoph Hellwig 2006-02-10 15:27 ` Alan Stern 2006-02-10 15:30 ` Matthew Wilcox 2006-02-10 15:58 ` Alan Stern
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.