--- "Moore, Eric" <Eric.Moore@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Monday, September 11, 2006 1:56 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> > > A pretty print for the current u32 would be very useful though for
> > > transports dealing with non single level luns (or address
> > methods other
> > > than zero).
> >
> > A better subject line would have been "HCIL isolation" I suppose. I
> > would like to see increased usage of the accessors already present in
> > include/scsi/scsi_device.h, which would ease the transition from
> > hardcoded HCIL struct members to a more flexible addressing method.
> >
> > Though, FWIW, for LUNs I would certainly like to see u64 rather than
> > u32.....
> >
>
> shouldn't luns be defined as:
>
> u8 lun[8] instead of u64?
>
> Luben?
Hi Eric,
Yes, you are absolutely correct, LUNs as well as SAS addresses,
are indeed u8[8], for well known reasons.
Luben
-
To unsubscribe from this list: 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
