--- Stefan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do all these transports use the same *name* for the attribute holding
> the target port identifier's?
Sure, it is "tpid".
> In other words, is userspace able to find
> the target port identifier without knowing which transport is at work?
How can t
--- James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're sort of confusing what we display as the LUN and what we
> represent it as internally (admittedly they're the same at the moment).
> The object would be to separate these and the debate is really about
> what to display.
Display this:
"%016l
--- Stefan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My thought was that SCSI core's role would only be to create the
> respective sysfs attributes (thus enforcing uniform naming of the
> attributes), but that the transport layer implementations are
> responsible to feed string representations there; in
Luben Tuikov wrote:
> Indeed it is more accurate to represent LUNs in 64 bit format.
>
> It is even more accurate to represent them as u8 LUN[8], and possibly
> print them as
> "0x%016llx" ((unsigned long long) be64_to_cpu(*(__be64 *)(LUN))).
Might need a little precaution on some architectur
James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 20:57 +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
>> I would also like to have the Target Port identifier in there. This, in
>> combination with the LUN alias Logical Unit identifier is useful for all
>> kinds of persistent device mapping.
>
> Really, no. Target p
Luben Tuikov wrote:
> --- Stefan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I would also like to have the Target Port identifier in there.
("in there" = in sysfs)
> Well this is not correct because the TPI's format and representation
> is transport dependent
My thought was that SCSI core's role would
On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 20:57 +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > why don't we stick with the original implementation like zfcp had it?
> > We can simpley expand the midlayer to add an attribute 'lun'
> > to each scsi_device. This would be the LUN as returned by eg
> > REPORT LU
--- Stefan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > why don't we stick with the original implementation like zfcp had it?
> > We can simpley expand the midlayer to add an attribute 'lun'
> > to each scsi_device. This would be the LUN as returned by eg
> > REPORT LUNS.
> > No
--- Doug Maxey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:11:39 CDT, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 21:40 -0700, Mike Anderson wrote:
> > > James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > A proposal to display the correct form of the LUN would be useful if you
> > > >
--- James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 21:40 -0700, Mike Anderson wrote:
> > James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > A proposal to display the correct form of the LUN would be useful if you
> > > wish to make it? ... The problem is really that SAM specifies
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 12:39:33AM +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> Sweep registered blkdev when scsi_register_driver has failed.
>
> Cc: Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Signed-off-by: Akinobu Mita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Index: 2.6-rc/drivers/scsi/sr.c
>
Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> why don't we stick with the original implementation like zfcp had it?
> We can simpley expand the midlayer to add an attribute 'lun'
> to each scsi_device. This would be the LUN as returned by eg
> REPORT LUNS.
> No translation, nothing. Would be easy to implement and would
Sweep registered blkdev when scsi_register_driver has failed.
Cc: Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Akinobu Mita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: 2.6-rc/drivers/scsi/sr.c
===
--- 2.6-rc.orig/drivers/scsi/sr.c
+++ 2.6-rc/drivers
Swen Schillig wrote:
> On Friday 22 June 2007 16:11, James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 21:40 -0700, Mike Anderson wrote:
>>> James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A proposal to display the correct form of the LUN would be useful if you
wish to make it? ... The problem
On Friday 22 June 2007 16:11, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 21:40 -0700, Mike Anderson wrote:
> > James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > A proposal to display the correct form of the LUN would be useful if you
> > > wish to make it? ... The problem is really that SAM spe
15 matches
Mail list logo
