On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 05:27:47PM +0200, Andreas Herrmann wrote: > > It works by accident, but I will veto any updates you're going to send > > for this broken behaviour. > > So scsi_add_device will soon be mentioned in > Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt? No, the will still be available for transport where they make sense, aka non-SAM things like RAID adapters. > What is the rationale of proscribing usage of scsi_add_device() when > scsi_transport_fc is used? We do actually use it inernally in the sysfs scan attribute. We don't want the driver to do their own LUN scanning, though - that's the job of the generic scsi code. > > That's intentional. See the discussion during development of the FC > > transport class. I don't like that behaviour but it's a compromise we > > agreed on. > > Where is the function to remove the scsi target representation of > an rport? You did not agree on having memory leaks in the kernel, did > you? fc_remove_host will remove it when the host is gone. - : 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
