Re: [PATCH 2.6.13 5/14] sas-class: sas_discover.c Discover process (end devices)

James Bottomley
2005-09-10T16:01:27Z

On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 19:44 -0700, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> > this one completely duplicates the
> > mid-layer infrastructure for handling devices with Logical Units.
>
> No, it does *not*. James, you have _stop_ spreading FUD, relying
> that other people have not read the SCSI Core code.

We have an infrastructure in the mid-layer for doing report lun scans.
You have a parallel one in your code. In my book, that's duplication.

> See here:
> SCSI Core has *no representation* of a SCSI Device with a
> SCSI Target Port.

A scsi target is represented by struct scsi_target.

> I've _clearly_ outlined that in the comments of the code,
> which you _conveniently_ did _not_ cut and paste here.
>
> I've been asking for a generic SCSI Target representation for
> the last 5 years, which you conventiently skip to mention.
> Or shall we search linux-scsi archives?
>
> As to duplication: NOT!
>
> Why?
>
> Look at scsi_scan_target() declaration:
>
> void scsi_scan_target(struct device *parent, unsigned int channel,
> unsigned int id, unsigned int lun, int rescan);
>
> Channel, id, lun, rescan? WTF?

So you want to rehash that argument again.

Either you can do what others like FC currently do:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=110546207223304

Or you can follow the recipe you were given for making the mid-layer use
arbitrary identifiers for the target

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=112487476527470

Simply writing your own because you don't like the former and the
latter's too much work isn't acceptable.

> Do you see any of this in the proprely implemented LU discovery
> code in the SAS discovery code I submitted?

Yes, of course, I did notice the W_LUN support which we could do with in
scsi_report_lun_scan() if you'd care to play nicely with others.

> I asked for pure SCSI device with Target port implementation of
> scsi_target and _you_ rejected it about 4 years ago. Shall I search
> for this message in the linux-scsi archives?

You can ask for all the features you want ... however, unless you can
persuade someone else to do the implementation, you get to write the
code yourself...

> > > + * REPORT LUNS is mandatory. If a device doesn't support it,
> > > + * it is broken and you should return it. Nevertheless, we
> > > + * assume (optimistically) that the link hasn't been severed and
> > > + * that maybe we can get to the device anyhow.
> >
> > That's a surprisingly optimistic statement from someone who claims to
> > have worked in SCSI for so long. We have a huge list of heuristics for
>
> Ouch! Getting into the personal arena now, are we?
>
> James, how old are the blacklisted devices you talk of?
>
> How old are SAS devices?
>
> > devices that violate the standards in one way or another. We already
> > have a flag for a SCSI3 device that doesn't respond correctly to
> > REPORT_LUNS ... and we have a few other reports of potentially more
> > suspect devices.
>
> Are those devices SAS?
>
> Again, stop spreading FUD and talking as you know what you're talking about.
>
> "few other reports of potentially more suspect devices" -- is such
> a broad and vague statement that it isn't worth much.
>
> First are those SAS devices.
>
> Second, SAS devices being very recent have their firmware written
> to latest specs, and advertised as SPC-3 and SAM-3.

We have boatloads of devices that claim SCSI-n or SPC-n compliance then
fail in various ways. That's what the list in scsi_devinfo.c is all
about. I'm sure the manufacturers of those devices didn't intentionally
set out to violate the specs; however, what they actually released does.
I'm sure that SAS vendors will start out with the best of intentions
too ...

> > Now, if you did this properly and used the mid-layer infrastructure you
> > wouldn't have to worry about any of this.
> >
> > > +static int sas_do_lu_discovery(struct domain_device *dev)
> >
> > Please just handle targets ... scanning beyond targets is best handled
> > in generic code.
>
> I agree.
>
> But that generic code you talk about is complete *crap* and needs
> rewriting. When that generic code, can handle "SCSI device with
> a Target port" then I'd love to off load that to SCSI Core.
>
> In fact initially I _really_ tried to offload that to SCSI Core,
> but it didn't quite work, then I wrote LU discovery. Just run it on
> real hardware.

The practise of allowing Vendors to duplicate code just because they
didn't like what's in the generic subsystem or because it lacks a
feature they need hasn't been acceptable for a long time now. Either
use what we have or fix it to do what you want.

James