From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] scsi_scan: Restrict sequential scan to 256 LUNs Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 07:49:26 -0700 Message-ID: <20140327144926.GB16958@infradead.org> References: <1386673515-87133-1-git-send-email-hare@suse.de> <1386673515-87133-3-git-send-email-hare@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:36043 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755244AbaC0Ot1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:49:27 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1386673515-87133-3-git-send-email-hare@suse.de> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Hannes Reinecke Cc: James Bottomley , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:05:12PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > Sequential scan for more than 256 LUNs is very fragile as > LUNs might not be numbered sequentially after that point. > > SAM revisions later than SCSI-3 impose a structure on > LUNs larger than 256, making LUN numbers between 256 > and 16384 illegal. > SCSI-3, however allows for plain 64-bit numbers with > no internal structure. > > So restrict sequential LUN scan to 256 LUNs and add a > new blacklist flag 'BLIST_SCSI3LUN' to scan up to > max_lun devices. What do you need the blacklist flag for? There's no user of it, and supporting that many LUNs without REPORT LUNS support doesn't sound very practical anyway.