From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] MidLayer updates - extending scsi_target support Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 17:33:16 +0000 Message-ID: <20050206173316.GA2589@infradead.org> References: <0B1E13B586976742A7599D71A6AC733C12EB2A@xbl3.ma.emulex.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:15790 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261247AbVBFRdU (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Feb 2005 12:33:20 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0B1E13B586976742A7599D71A6AC733C12EB2A@xbl3.ma.emulex.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James.Smart@Emulex.Com Cc: vst@vlnb.net, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 12:28:17PM -0500, James.Smart@Emulex.Com wrote: > Since the Emulex driver tracks things by target (actually FC remote port) > rather than luns, having the ability to have driver data space in the > lun didn't help much. Yes, the driver data space could be in the > transport-specific FC remote port, but I thought a more generic solution > would have been prefered - thus the patch request. > > At this point, it appears that consensus is against the need for this, > especially as it can be handled within the only area needed today - that of > the FC transport. Well, I disagree with that for certain. I know of a handfull of SPI HBA drivers that would benefit from per-target private data.