From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luben Tuikov Subject: Re: generating a Linux WWN? Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:38:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <660594.90733.qm@web31808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <470327C9.9060103@garzik.org> Reply-To: ltuikov@yahoo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: Received: from web31808.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.207.71]:27970 "HELO web31808.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751316AbXJCFip (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 01:38:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <470327C9.9060103@garzik.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Michael Reed , James.Smart@Emulex.Com, linux-scsi --- Jeff Garzik wrote: > Luben Tuikov wrote: > > --- Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> Luben Tuikov wrote: > >>> --- Jeff Garzik wrote: > >>>> Luben Tuikov wrote: > >>>>> This still does not justify "let's generate it in the kernel". > >>>> Once an admin specifies to use an alternate WWN provision, the method > >>>> used to obtain that WWN is an implementation detail and irrelevant. > >>> But you're arguing that the kernel should generate it to "help out" > >>> SAS drivers with HW that has had it's MS/NVRAM erased or corrupted. > >>> > >>> The kernel has no business generating SAS WWN. > >> Perhaps you missed the English text "once an admin specifies" in the > >> quoted email. > > > > Was your "once an admin specifies" reply to my email > > supposed to be "Oh, I see, generating a SAS WWN in the kernel > > is not that good an idea after all. I'll implement it > > as a kernel/module option." ? > > The admin will have the option to auto-generate a WWN, should they so > desire. Do you mean: "The admin will have the option to SPECIFY(SET) a WWN, should they so desire." OR do you mean: "The admin will have the option to HAVE THE KERNEL auto-generate a WWN, should they so desire."