--- Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Moore, Eric 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?
>
> Please, not that argument again :)
>
> It's purely semantics, the same storage is used, and only very rarely
> are the contents actually examined in either case.
After a while, those little things, "purely semantics" as you called
them, _accrue_ to produce the ''architecture'' of the subject matter.
As they say, "The devil is in the details."
Good luck!
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
