On 09/14/05 14:47, James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 15:42 -0700, Patrick Mansfield wrote: > >>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. > > > Well I agree with the analysis, but even given that, we have a linux > implementation problem: We have to get an inquiry response first before > we begin a report luns scan. An array implementing a W_LUN is entitled > not respond on LUN 0 to INQUIRY with an error, which would mean we don't > see it. > > Therefore, I think our strategy has to be when the current probe fails > because of no LUN 0 try a report luns scan on the W_LUN anyway as long > as the transport indicates it is capable of supporting it (i.e. as long > as it has max_luns set at 0xffff or higher). Alternatively, you can see how this is all properly implemented in the SAS Layer which I posted last week. All indications point to the fact that you had indeed taken a look at the code. Luben - : 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
