Tejun Heo wrote: > You're right. I was confused that ->slave_destroy() is called on host > release. SCSI doesn't have host release callback. What do you think > about adding a host release callback? That should make things easier > and it is generally useful. Sounds reasonable. >> In order to do what you are proposing, I think we would need to add >> some refcounting to the ata_host object. Each allocated ata_port would >> get a reference to its parent ata_host and would put a reference when the >> port is freed. Otherwise I am concerned that we would end up in the situation >> where the ata_host is freed before all the ata ports and the scsi_host is >> freed. It might be appropriate to create an ata_host class device and >> an ata_port class device... > > Or we can just keep ata_host_init() and let sas allocate ata_host as > part of SCSI host and free all dynamic stuff when all ports are > detached. It's a bit hacky but should work for the time being. I think that's a fine approach for now. > >>> Hmmm.... I see. Something like ata_dev_attach(adev) after initialized >>> by SAS maybe? >> Possibly. Are you proposing that ata_dev_attach would then end up calling >> scsi_add_device after doing the ATA initialization stuff? > > For SAS, libata isn't controlling SCSI host, so I think it's more > logical to leave SCSI devices to SAS too. I agree. -- Brian King eServer Storage I/O IBM Linux Technology Center - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
