On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 03:40:48PM -0600, Mike Christie wrote: > It looks like a hack around scsi_scan_host not removing devices. > Going forward, it looks like we can remove the inquiry code by having > scsi_scan_host be able to remove devices that are no longer returned. Yes, that's the place to do it. I can see arguments for and against that, but doing it from and LLDD (and including sd.h in the LLDD implementation!) just doesn't make sense. > I was thinking to handle the DID_BAD_TARGET use case above and this type > of issue: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/CA+PODjqrRzyJnOKoabMOV4EPByNnL1LgTi+QAKENP3NwUq5YCw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > maybe we want to have a driver level BLIST like: Maybe instead of a blist we just need better way to communicate this rather than abusing DID_BAD_TARGET? > One other question, can I do this work after the patchset in this email, the > scsi_cmnd retry patches and the actual PR ones? I keep going off track on these > side adventures. Yes, please. I think we need to finish this series first.
