From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Smart Subject: Re: [RFC] FC transport: Disable LUN scanning from low level driver Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:03:17 -0400 Message-ID: <46CAE295.2050404@emulex.com> References: <20070820112121.GA1487@schmichrtp.de.ibm.com> <46CA3ACB.7070708@emulex.com> <20070821123640.GA4821@schmichrtp.de.ibm.com> Reply-To: James.Smart@Emulex.Com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from emulex.emulex.com ([138.239.112.1]:42118 "EHLO emulex.emulex.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752189AbXHUNDV (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:03:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070821123640.GA4821@schmichrtp.de.ibm.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christof Schmitt Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Nit (but preferred) : change "no_target_scan" to "disable_target_scan". Otherwise, patch is good. Christof Schmitt wrote: > I attached a new patch that adds a flag to the fc template. So far, it > is untested. What is the better approach? Avoid scanning with the flag > being 1 or use the 1 to enable scaning and make this change in all FC > drivers? 1 to disable. Avoid changing the drivers... > We had the discussion about zfcp inventing LUNs in the past > (http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg17125.html). Yep. However, I don't agree with Hannes in this case. Given that the firmware is already doing funky things to share the real adapter, I believe it (or the driver) should do the right thing in the LUN presentation to keep the system happy. But - I guess that's something for a different time. -- james s