From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] struct scsi_lun preparation Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:55:40 -0400 Message-ID: <4505BF3C.8070806@garzik.org> References: <20060911143406.GA12991@havoc.gtf.org> <1157995742.3470.10.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:47293 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932278AbWIKTzn (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:55:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1157995742.3470.10.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 10:34 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> A long-term, low priority project of mine is to increasingly isolate >> HCIL addressing, making it easier to directly support FC/SAS-style >> addressing without hacks and HCIL emulation. > > I'm not sure we want to embed an actual struct scsi_lun into the whole > of the scsi subsystem. At the moment, given that no-one's actually > managed to find any device that goes beyond two levels, the current u32 > for lun is perfectly fine. If we're eventually forced beyond two > levels, we can consider the transition (although going to u64 does look > tempting). > > A pretty print for the current u32 would be very useful though for > transports dealing with non single level luns (or address methods other > than zero). A better subject line would have been "HCIL isolation" I suppose. I would like to see increased usage of the accessors already present in include/scsi/scsi_device.h, which would ease the transition from hardcoded HCIL struct members to a more flexible addressing method. Though, FWIW, for LUNs I would certainly like to see u64 rather than u32..... Jeff