On 09/12/05 13:21, James Bottomley wrote:
>>So some storage devices that want to use addressing methods other than 00b
>>don't because we do not have 8 byte LUN support in linux, and then we have
>>other problems because of this.
>
> Well, as long as we represent the u32 (or u64) as
>
> scsilun[1] | (scsilun[0] << 8) | (scsilun[3] << 16) | (scsilun[2] << 24)
>
> I think we cover all 2 level lun bases, don't we (obviously we ignore
> levels 3 and 4 [and 6 and 8 byte extended luns])?
I fail to see why do you want to interpret LUNs? If you want
to be "future-proof", SCSI Core should use it transparently,
a la, memcpy().
If you want to print it you can use "%016llx", be64_to_cpu(*(u64 *)...),
just like WWN. _That_ will have a meaning to the application client/user,
but SCSI Core should treat it as a transparent token.
> That representation works transparently for type 00b which is what SPI
> and other legacy expects, since our lun variable is equal to the actual
> numeric lun. Although SAM allows type 01b for arrays with < 256 LUNs it
> does strongly suggest you use type 00b which hopefully will cover us for
> a while longer...
Why do you care about any of this if you support 64 bit luns?
Luben
> fc already uses int_to_scsilun and 8 byte LUN addressing, so it will
> work even in the 01b case (the numbers that the mid-layer prints will
> look odd, but at least the driver will work).
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |