From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: generating a Linux WWN? Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:23:00 -0400 Message-ID: <4707A854.1080309@garzik.org> References: <1191622146.3475.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20071005.151131.125883267.davem@davemloft.net> <1191622488.3475.54.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20071005.151711.112302061.davem@davemloft.net> <1191679870.3338.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <47079D64.3070000@garzik.org> <1191683096.3338.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> 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]:59183 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758575AbXJFPXQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Oct 2007 11:23:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1191683096.3338.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: David Miller , ltuikov@yahoo.com, lydianconcepts@gmail.com, mdr@sgi.com, James.Smart@emulex.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org James Bottomley wrote: > If you remember Rusty's guide to interfaces, this is a level 14 easy to > misuse interface: "The obvious use is wrong"; since the obvious use is > to put it in module parameters and have the problem go away (for > now ...). Actually, I could be harsher and say it's level 17 "There's > no correct use" because statistically every time you use it, you expose > yourself to potential duplicate WWNs. Now that you have said "there's no correct use" you have managed to logic yourself into silly-land. That is utterly specious logic when duplicate WWNs are quite unlikely, and furthermore -- as demonstrated by use in network drivers -- use of the feature itself is not the common case. Field experience directly contradicts this entire line of reasoning. Jeff