From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Doug Ledford Subject: Re: [PATCH / RFC] scsi_error handler update. (1/4) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:50:46 -0500 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030214135046.A21504@redhat.com> References: <20030211212048.GC1114@beaverton.ibm.com> <3E49698D.3030402@splentec.com> <20030211224119.A23149@infradead.org> <3E4AAA3F.8040002@splentec.com> <20030212204634.A17425@infradead.org> <3E4AC0B5.9030208@splentec.com> <20030213154748.A1965@infradead.org> <3E4BEA13.50402@splentec.com> <20030213192440.A6660@redhat.com> <20030214165827.GA1165@beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030214165827.GA1165@beaverton.ibm.com>; from andmike@us.ibm.com on Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 08:58:27AM -0800 List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Anderson Cc: Luben Tuikov , Christoph Hellwig , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org 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 919-754-3700 x44233 Red Hat, Inc. 1801 Varsity Dr. Raleigh, NC 27606