From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Ed Lin <ed.lin@promise.com>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>, jeff <jeff@garzik.org>,
promise_linux <promise_linux@promise.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] stex: fix id mapping issue(v3)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 08:58:13 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1175781493.3714.6.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070405074215.GA25196@infradead.org>
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 08:42 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 08:05:59PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Erm, there's a simple way out of this: That's the BLIST_FORCELUN
> > option. This is why most of the RAID devices have entries in
> > scsi_devinfo.c like:
> >
> > {"ADAPTEC", "AACRAID", NULL, BLIST_FORCELUN},
> >
> > Which overrides the CONFIG_SCSI_MULTI_LUN setting for the particular
> > device. We can easily add an entry for stex as well.
>
> IMHO we should kill CONFIG_SCSI_MULTI_LUN and add blacklist enries for
> devices that don't handle scanning for luns > 1 instead. I think the
> RH/Fedora kernel has started collecting these blacklist entries for
> a long time already.
I wouldn't disagree with that. There have been several schools of
thought on this: One was that every multi-lun device since SPC should
support REPORT LUNS, so MULTI_LUN should be off by default and we
whitelist non SPC compliant multi-lun devices. If we also added a host
hook to allow RAID devices to declare themselves, then I think we
capture 99% of the current cases.
Another is just to make it on by default. I note that both SLES10 and
RHEL5 now define it on, so I can't see much argument in support of a
distro setting it off.
James
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-04-05 13:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-04-04 23:56 [PATCH 1/4] stex: fix id mapping issue(v3) Ed Lin
2007-04-05 1:05 ` James Bottomley
2007-04-05 7:42 ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-04-05 13:58 ` James Bottomley [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-04-17 3:46 Ed Lin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1175781493.3714.6.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com \
--to=james.bottomley@steeleye.com \
--cc=ed.lin@promise.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jeff@garzik.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=promise_linux@promise.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox