From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brian King Subject: Re: [PATCH] Hidden scsi devices Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:33:33 -0600 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <4010096D.4030205@us.ibm.com> References: <4010034A.3040903@us.ibm.com> <1074792163.2149.12.camel@mulgrave> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.103]:63440 "EHLO e3.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266348AbUAVRdj (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:33:39 -0500 List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Martin Peschke3 , SCSI Mailing List James Bottomley wrote: > On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 12:07, Brian King wrote: > >>Because the device is reported to the LLDD by the adapter as a >>specific device type. The adapter creates a configuration table >>describing all attached devices that the LLDD must retrieve. In this >>configuration table there are several types of devices: > > > If you can't ever get access to these devices and you only want sg > access for SCSI command ioctls, you could just alter the device type to > something like PROCESSOR (or even an unclassified type) which will solve > the error messages from sd problem. I agree that this is a solution as well (requires more code), but then sysfs will show the device as a different device type, which I would think might be confusing. > The true solution to this issue looks to be more flexibility in the > binding process. We did discuss this previously, certainly in a SAN > environment there are reasons for only actually binding (and allocating > resources to) devices you're interested in. Who generally has this knowledge in your example? The LLDD? Would a LLDD host template function that gets called for each disk be more palatable? -- Brian King eServer Storage I/O IBM Linux Technology Center