On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 08:28:29AM -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> On 09/13/05 18:42, Patrick Mansfield wrote:
> > What I mean is that the target has to intercept the command whether it is
> > a REPORT LUN or for the well known (W_LUN).
> >
> > The target (firmware) code has to have code today like:
> >
> > if (cmd == REPORT_LUN) {
> > do_report_lun();
> > }
> >
> > For only W_LUN support, the code might be something like:
> >
> > if (lun == W_LUN) {
> > if (cmd == REPORT_LUN) {
> > do_report_lun();
> > }
> > }
> >
> > But the first case above already covers even the W_LUN case.
>
> _Except_, that what the firmware actually does is, it routes
> the tasks by LUN first, _before_ looking up with what the command
> is.* This is crucial.
That is what the second code snippet above is meant to show.
> > So adding a W_LUN at this point does not add any value ... maybe it looks
> > nice in the spec and in someones firmware, but it does not add anything
> > that I can see.
>
> I wonder if the maintainer of the SCSI Core would listen or ignore your
> opinion here.
> I wonder _who_ decides here where speculation ends and industry
> opinion starts?
I am talking about the scsi spec, not the code. IMO linux scsi code should
support W_LUN and 64 bit LUN.
-- 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
