From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [RFC 0/16] gdth combined patchset & call for testers Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:00:32 -0400 Message-ID: <47000E70.8090204@garzik.org> References: <46FFFC8C.6080804@panasas.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:56651 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752164AbXI3VBF (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:01:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46FFFC8C.6080804@panasas.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Boaz Harrosh Cc: Christoph Hellwig , James Bottomley , Matthew Wilcox , achim_leubner@adaptec.com, linux-scsi Boaz Harrosh wrote: > [8/16] gdth: Remove virt hosts - Christoph && Boaz > Here we need an executive decision! The issue is as stated by Christoph: > > "The virt_ctr option allows to register a new scsi_host for each bus > on the raid controller. This non-default option makes no sense with > the current scsi code and prevents cleaning up the host registration, > so remove it." > > I agree. This is just exactly the same as done buy scsi-ml scans but only > more resource consuming. Unless I'm totally missing something, perhaps it is > just a leftover from old kernels. > > But if it is decided that this "virt_ctr" fixture is absolutely needed than > I have a patch for re-enabling it at: "after the patchset", done in a different > way. Because for now it prevents the cleanups I need. > > Also this patch can Just be merged with [7/16] but I wanted it separate in the > case we decide for "virt_ctr" fixture return. I definitely agree too (that virt_ctr should go away). My only worry is that this breaks somebody in the field. Given that it is apparently a non-default option, I think that worry can be overlooked. Jeff