From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Douglas Gilbert Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] yet more struct scsi_lun Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 20:48:02 +1000 Message-ID: <435B6A62.8070306@torque.net> References: <20051023043301.GA22615@havoc.gtf.org> <20051023070011.GA26569@havoc.gtf.org> Reply-To: dougg@torque.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from zorg.st.net.au ([203.16.233.9]:59600 "EHLO borg.st.net.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750785AbVJWKrA (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Oct 2005 06:47:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20051023070011.GA26569@havoc.gtf.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Jeff Garzik wrote: > Douglas Gilbert reminded me of a lun limitation I could kill. This > patch applied on top of the previous two lun patches. > > DO NOT APPLY. For discussion only. > > Changes: > * add SCSILUN_UNLIMITED for LLDDs without lun limits; set > shost->max_lun = SCSILUN_UNLIMITED; Which in turn makes me think of applying the same idea to max_sectors shost->max_sectors = MAX_512B_SECTORS_UNLIMITED; which would be the default unless the HBA (RAID controller or whatever) really does have a (practical) limit. If a device beyond the target has a limit, then that is not the LLD's concern. Doug Gilbert