Re: [PATCH / RFC] scsi_error handler update. (1/4)

[Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 08:58:27AM -0800, Mike Anderson wrote:
> The need is there for per target data, but if we talk about future
> directions it would appear a cleaner interface would be to have luns as
> children of the targets (? ports ?) vs having a list of luns and post linking
> relationships.

Yes it would be cleaner.  I haven't had the time to work on scsi lately 
(job responsibility issues) and so I'm not one to go telling people what 
to do.  I suggested an easy alternative, while this requires, I think, 
quite a bit more work to restructure things.  If I had the time to do it 
myself this is the direction I would be looking in.  It has other side 
benefits as well, like you can simplify the scsi scanning code a little 
bit because the lun0 scsi level would always be device->target->scsi_level 
and I'm sure other minor optimizations can be made.

-- 
  Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>     919-754-3700 x44233
         Red Hat, Inc. 
         1801 Varsity Dr.
         Raleigh, NC 27606