From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Reinecke Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] scsi: 64-bit LUN support Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:31:11 +0100 Message-ID: <51288C5F.1080802@suse.de> References: <1361261883-41467-1-git-send-email-hare@suse.de> <94D0CD8314A33A4D9D801C0FE68B402950D7A4E0@G9W0745.americas.hpqcorp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:59917 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753561Ab3BWIbW (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Feb 2013 03:31:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: <94D0CD8314A33A4D9D801C0FE68B402950D7A4E0@G9W0745.americas.hpqcorp.net> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: "Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)" Cc: "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , James Bottomley , Jeremy Linton , Bart Van Assche On 02/21/2013 05:15 PM, Elliott, Robert (Server Storage) wrote: > Regarding changes like this: > - printk(MYIOC_s_NOTE_FMT "[%d:%d:%d:%d] " > + printk(MYIOC_s_NOTE_FMT "[%d:%d:%d:%llu] " > "FCP_ResponseInfo=%08xh\n", ioc->name, > sc->device->host->host_no, sc->device->channel, > sc->device->id, sc->device->lun, > > It might be preferable to print the LUN values in hex rather than decimal, > particularly if they are large values. SAM-5 includes some guidance for > displaying LUNs, shown below. > > One important goal is to match the format, if any, that the user must use > in a configuration file or command line argument, so cutting-and-pasting > the LUN value works. So, the answer might differ for prints from different > drivers. If a driver expects decimal input values, then print decimal. > Yes. And no. The patchset is meant to be as a drop-in replacement, ie with _no_ user visible changes. So I retained the original output. Also, the above number is identical to the sysfs representation, where the user will find a device like /sys/class/scsi_device/X:Y:Z:L with each X, Y, Z, and L being a decimal number. _If_ we were to change that we would have to do it consistently for all instances, plus the sysfs layout. But I guess we need to have a discussion about this, as I think not everybody agrees with that assessment. Would be a nice topic for LSF, though. Cheers, Hannes