From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: RE: [PATCH] - Fusion-MPT much faster as module Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:07:43 -0600 Message-ID: <1111550863.5520.92.camel@mulgrave> References: <91888D455306F94EBD4D168954A9457C01AEB1F7@nacos172.co.lsil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: from stat16.steeleye.com ([209.192.50.48]:5351 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262760AbVCWEHw (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Mar 2005 23:07:52 -0500 In-Reply-To: <91888D455306F94EBD4D168954A9457C01AEB1F7@nacos172.co.lsil.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: "Moore, Eric Dean" Cc: linux-kernel , SCSI Mailing List , Andrew Morton , kenneth.w.chen@intel.com On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 13:35 -0700, Moore, Eric Dean wrote: > I still wonder if the SPI transport layer will work for RAID volumes. > Do you know if the spi transport layer supports dv on hidden devices in a > raid volume? > Meaning these hidden physical disks will not been seen by the block layer, > however > spi transport layer would be aware so dv can be performed those hidden disk? I recall this being discussed, and the conclusion being that we could allow a flag to bar attachment of the ULD. So the underlying discs would have a scsi_device but no sd device. Then the spi_transport class will work fine on them but the user wouldn't be able to open them or mount anything. James