On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 12:58 -0600, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 16:32 -0800, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > Subject: scsi_dh: Add support for SDEV_PASSIVE > > > > From: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > This patch adds a new device state SDEV_PASSIVE, to correspond to the > > passive side access of an active/passive multipathed device. > > Really, no; this isn't right. The state field of a SCSI device is for > the SCSI state model. Passive might be a valid device mapper state, but Hi James, It is not the "device mapper state", it is the state of the device itself. These devices have active/passive paths, the passive paths will be represented by SDEV_PASSIVE device state in SCSI. chandra > it's not a valid SCSI state. If these patches can't work except by > mucking with the SCSI state model, there's some layering problem > elsewhere that needs sorting out. > > James > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose.... - sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx | .......you may get it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
