On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 01:23:04PM -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote: > I don't mind LLDD giving channel and id to SCSI Core. Not at all. > What I mind is the _way_ it is done. > > Just consider this (and I'm sure you have the same sentiments): > slave alloc gives you channel and id and lun/2 to find out > the device it wants to poke at... And the really sad part is > that NO ONE at linux-scsi finds this objectionable. This should've > been thrown out 5 years ago (well slave alloc wasn't around then) > when iSCSI was making its way in, and when people suggested it. > Sadly it was shot down by the Maintainers and this is what we > have here today. ->slave_alloc gives you a scsi_device. With proper transport class integration that can include lots of transport-specific information. > Ok, to answer both your and Jeff's email, this is how this all is done: > > Let, (channel, id) tuple be *just another label*! They pretty much are that as far as the scsi core code is concerned. Just do a little grep for ->channel and ->id over the scsi core, there's very few users except printks, and most of those few are in optional library functions that should move into the SPI transport class one day. - : 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
