From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: FWD: [BK PATCH] SCSI host num allocation improvement Date: 27 Feb 2004 09:08:18 -0600 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1077894499.1806.14.camel@mulgrave> References: <1077842444.2662.123.camel@mulgrave> <20040227124811.A32109@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from stat1.steeleye.com ([65.114.3.130]:64215 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262966AbUB0PI1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:08:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20040227124811.A32109@infradead.org> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Ben Collins , SCSI Mailing List On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 06:48, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Well, the last patch looks sane if we want to do that. But didn't we > declare the mononically increasing host numbers a feature? This is the part that worries me too. At the moment with monotonically increasing host numbers, the operation of scsi_host_lookup() is provably safe. Can we prove that all uses of it are still safe if we reuse the host numbers? James