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, 22 May 2014 02:08:47 -0700 Message-ID: <20140522090847.GC14854@infradead.org> References: <1400583791-123120-1-git-send-email-hare@suse.de> <1400583791-123120-3-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]:60091 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752517AbaEVJIr (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 May 2014 05:08:47 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1400583791-123120-3-git-send-email-hare@suse.de> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Hannes Reinecke Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, James Bottomley On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 01:03:08PM +0200, 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. Looks good, Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig Do you know any common devices reporting SCSI-2? I've only really seen SCSI-2 and never SBC levels in practical use.