From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chandra Seetharaman Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi_dh_rdac: Add dynamic match functionality to rdac handler Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:05:30 -0500 Message-ID: <1334945131.3420.33.camel@chandra-lucid.austin.ibm.com> References: <77471C95FAFD844C8CA02DD4F4C5FE2B0574C6@SACEXCMBX02-PRD.hq.netapp.com> <1334939232.3420.30.camel@chandra-lucid.austin.ibm.com> <4F919351.3050000@cs.wisc.edu> Reply-To: sekharan@us.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:53459 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756818Ab2DTSGn (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:06:43 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e33.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:06:41 -0600 Received: from d01relay03.pok.ibm.com (d01relay03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.235]) by d01dlp03.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8980C90060 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:06:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d01relay03.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q3KI6AGH266156 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:06:11 -0400 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q3KI5WQQ024192 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:05:32 -0600 In-Reply-To: <4F919351.3050000@cs.wisc.edu> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Christie Cc: "Moger, Babu" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , device-mapper development , "Krishnasamy, Somasundaram" On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 11:48 -0500, Mike Christie wrote: > On 04/20/2012 11:27 AM, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > Babu, > > > > So, in effect, any SCSI devices with INQ C8 page with "edid" would be > > treated as a rdac device, right ? > > > > Is that enough to identify _any_ SCSI device as a rdac device (even in > > future) ? > > > > Also, instead of repeating the code, can you use submit_inquiry() ? > > > > Yeah you are right, I think we should modify submit_inquiry to take in > the sense and data buffers instead of taking in the rdac_dh_data struct. > At the time the match function is run rdac_dh_data might not be allocated. oh yeah, I did not not realize that... >