From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH] 3ware: use scsi_scan_target() Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:34:59 -0400 Message-ID: <43442AE3.6030000@pobox.com> References: <4341D38A.40509@pobox.com> <20051005162850.GA17710@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.dvmed.net ([216.237.124.58]:6363 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030335AbVJETfH (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Oct 2005 15:35:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20051005162850.GA17710@infradead.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: SCSI Mailing List , linuxraid@amcc.com Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 08:57:46PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >>This change updates the 3ware raid drivers to use scsi_scan_target(), >>rather than scsi_scan_host(). This is especially nice for 3w-xxxx, >>which does not support LUNs. The device scan is a bit quicker and more >>direct, even if it is a tiny bit more code in the driver. > > > if it doesn't support luns scsi_add_device sounds like the better > interface to use. That applies to 3w-xxxx, certainly. I don't see a strong argument for scsi_add_device() over scsi_scan_target(), though. scsi_scan_target() directly supports the generic struct device/class_device stuff, and supports both wildcard LUN scans as well as no-LUN targets. My vague preference would be to use scsi_scan_target() unless there is a strong reason not to... > How does 3x-9xxx support luns? From reading the > code it doesn't seem to support passthru and faking up LUNs for logical > volumes sounds odd. [other emails appear to have addressed this] Jeff