Re: [PATCH] add device_configure to the transport classes

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>]

On Tue, 2004-10-05 at 12:10, Martin Peschke3 wrote:
> now that there is more and more stuff handed over to transport classes,
> would it be feasible to put LUN there as well, as its form appears to be
> transport specific as well? (e.g. 64 bit for FC while other transports
> may be unable to convey 64 bit LUNs)

Well, I'm not sure about that, primarily because the LUN specifications
in the standards aren't transport specific.

> I see that this particular patch is not exactly what was needed to achieve
> this, because at the time of the evaluation INQUIRY data the LUN has
> already been adapted to the way LUNs are stored in scsi_device.
> 
> I am also not sure yet how this approach would go with REPORT_LUNS,
> which returns 64 bit LUNs for all transports. But for everybody interested
> in 64 bit LUNs, it would certainly clean things up.

Yes, that's another reason to make it transport specific.  Even SPI code
has to understand 64 bit LUN returns.

James