From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [PATCH] add device_configure to the transport classes Date: 05 Oct 2004 12:18:38 -0500 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1096996724.2064.56.camel@mulgrave> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from stat16.steeleye.com ([209.192.50.48]:54667 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269091AbUJERSq (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2004 13:18:46 -0400 In-Reply-To: List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Martin Peschke3 Cc: SCSI Mailing List 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