On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 03:04:03PM -0400, James.Smart@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
> > Though we still have problems with scsi_report_lun_scan code like:
> >
> > } else if (lun > sdev->host->max_lun) {
> >
> > max_lun just has to be large, at least greater than 0xc001
> > (49153), maybe
> > even 0xffffffff, correct?
>
> right...
> >
> > But then some sequential scanning could take a while. Maybe the above
> > check is not needed.
> >
> > lpfc has max_luns set to 256, with max limited to 32768, I
> > don't know how
> > it could be working OK here. (Has James S or anyone tested this?)
>
> Yes we did test this (actually, we tested out to 64k). Time to perform all
> this looping, plus impacts due on sg devices (some configs generate huge
> numbers - outside of sg's range), made us pull back to 256 - although it's
> tunable.
I meant did you test many (even a few) LUNs with non 00b addressing mode?
sg (scsi generic) had fixed limits removed some time ago (in 2.6.x).
-- Patrick Mansfield
-
: 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
