From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: Merging se_dev_entry and se_lun? Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 23:56:24 -0700 Message-ID: <20150619065624.GA3601@infradead.org> References: <5583B957.20200@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:58893 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751021AbbFSG42 (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jun 2015 02:56:28 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5583B957.20200@suse.de> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Hannes Reinecke Cc: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" , target-devel , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , Andy Grover On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 08:40:23AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > Having a list here implies that 'se_lun' can have _several_ > se_dev_entry structure attached to it, which I found rather curious. > > Can you give me an example where this might be the case? > Or can we replace the list with a simple pointer or even merge both? Each initiator has it's own dev entry. What might make sense with the new list-based dev entry handling is to merge the se_lun_acl and se_dev_entry, but it would be a fair amount of work.