On Wed, 2022-06-22 at 12:49 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 6/22/22 10:16, Martin Wilck wrote:
> > On Tue, 2022-06-21 at 22:02 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> > >
> > > Martin,
> > >
> > > > @@ -1531,9 +1536,10 @@ static int scsi_report_lun_scan(struct
> > > > scsi_target *starget, blist_flags_t bflag
> > > > " allowed by the host
> > > > adapter\n", lun);
> > > > } else {
> > > > int res;
> > > > + blist_flags_t bflags =
> > > > BLIST_RETRY_SCAN;
> > >
> > > I'm not a big fan of using the bflag as carrier of "I was
> > > reported
> > > and
> > > therefore must exist".
> > >
> > > Also: Why isn't patch #2 sufficient?
> >
> > I think it is. I can resubmit just #2 if you prefer and Hannes
> > agrees.
> >
> I'm fine with just adding #2; #1 is really just there to provide the
> original behaviour. Device probing is one of the most arcane areas
> in the SCSI stack due to all the various quirks etc and I didn't want
> to change anything here.
>
> But if it's okay, it's okay :-)
Alright. To be certain, I'll ask our partner for another test.
Martin
