From: Kurt Garloff <garloff@suse.de>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@steeleye.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Linux SCSI list <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Patches for SCSI scanning
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:03:34 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040420160334.GO4356@tpkurt.garloff.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1082471881.1804.34.camel@mulgrave>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2070 bytes --]
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 09:38:00AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> Agree, but should be a blacklist flag to force the use of report luns in
> the scan.
Sure, I favour that solution as well.
> > * Patch 3: Allow host adapters to avoid REPORT_LUNS.
>
> This should be a black list flag too, but first explain why we need it.
> The only devices we do REPORT_LUNS for are SCSI 3 ones. Which SCSI 3
> device is so badly implemented as to respond incorrectly? I mean these
> are recent devices, so the implementors should have learned from past
> mistakes, right ?
Linux maps 8 byte LUNs to a 32bit number in scsilun_to_int().
There are several ways to use the 8 bytes, but the mapping assumes
a particular model which is often used and the mapping is nice in
that it results in LUNs being 0, 1, 2, ...
However, there are other possibilities. And as soon as the last
four bytes are non-zero, the mapping will break down :-/
The S/390 folks seem to have such devices.
Anyway, we get the BLIST flag for free when we replace patch 2
with BLIST_NOREPORTLUN and BLIST_REPORTLUN2.
> > * Patch 4: allow_ghost_devices parameter
>
> Blacklist flag again (oh and "Yuk!!!" by the way).
OK.
> > * Patch 5: inq_timeout parameter
>
> OK, just remove the arch gating of the default (ppc64 will have to have
> a permanent boot/module flag).
Sure, I already agreed to remove that ugly part.
> > If we introduce two more BLIST flags (BLIST_NOREPORTLUN and
> > BLIST_REPORTLUN2), we can get rid of patch 2 and 3, if we add another one
> > (BLIST_LUN0ONLINE), we can get rid off 4.
> >
> > We have 16 bits left, so it should be possible.
> >
> > If there's consensus to go that way, I can code it up, no problem.
> > Only patch 5 will remain then ...
>
> Yes, I'm fine with that (as long as the arch specific code from patch 5
> goes).
Expect patches later today.
Regards,
--
Kurt Garloff <garloff@suse.de> Cologne, DE
SUSE LINUX AG, Nuernberg, DE SUSE Labs (Head)
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-04-20 16:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-04-18 18:57 Patches for SCSI scanning Kurt Garloff
2004-04-18 23:16 ` James Bottomley
2004-04-20 11:54 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-20 12:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-04-20 13:02 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-20 14:38 ` James Bottomley
2004-04-20 16:03 ` Kurt Garloff [this message]
2004-04-20 16:08 ` James Bottomley
2004-04-21 13:48 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 15:36 ` James Bottomley
2004-04-21 13:45 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 14:10 ` PATCH 1/5: scsi-scan-deprecate-forcelun Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 14:12 ` PATCH 2/5: scsi-scan-blist_replun Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 15:14 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-04-21 15:30 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 16:03 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 14:13 ` PATCH 3/5: scsi-scan-no-offl-pq-notcon Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 14:14 ` PATCH 4/5: scsi-scan-dont-att-pq-notcon Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 15:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-04-21 15:24 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 15:33 ` Mike Anderson
2004-04-21 15:33 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-04-21 16:08 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 16:18 ` James Bottomley
2004-04-21 16:55 ` Patrick Mansfield
2004-04-21 22:51 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-22 20:39 ` Patrick Mansfield
2004-04-22 20:45 ` James Bottomley
2004-04-21 16:58 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 16:16 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 15:40 ` James Bottomley
2004-04-21 14:14 ` PATCH 5/5: scsi-scan-inq-timeout Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 20:24 ` Patrick Mansfield
2004-04-21 22:48 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 23:49 ` Patrick Mansfield
2004-04-20 16:26 ` Patches for SCSI scanning Patrick Mansfield
2004-04-20 16:42 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-20 17:44 ` Patrick Mansfield
2004-04-21 13:52 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-20 10:24 ` Fabien Salvi
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-04-22 4:09 Martin Peschke3
2004-04-22 4:17 Martin Peschke3
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=20040420160334.GO4356@tpkurt.garloff.de \
--to=garloff@suse.de \
--cc=James.Bottomley@steeleye.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
/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