On 09/14/05 14:47, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 15:42 -0700, Patrick Mansfield wrote:
>
>>So adding a W_LUN at this point does not add any value ... maybe it looks
>>nice in the spec and in someones firmware, but it does not add anything
>>that I can see.
>
>
> Well I agree with the analysis, but even given that, we have a linux
> implementation problem: We have to get an inquiry response first before
> we begin a report luns scan. An array implementing a W_LUN is entitled
> not respond on LUN 0 to INQUIRY with an error, which would mean we don't
> see it.
>
> Therefore, I think our strategy has to be when the current probe fails
> because of no LUN 0 try a report luns scan on the W_LUN anyway as long
> as the transport indicates it is capable of supporting it (i.e. as long
> as it has max_luns set at 0xffff or higher).
Alternatively, you can see how this is all properly implemented
in the SAS Layer which I posted last week.
All indications point to the fact that you had indeed taken
a look at the code.
Luben
-
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]
| |
 |