On 06/03/09 12:40, Takahiro Yasui wrote: > http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=114366299120761&w=2 >> - Blacklist flags are not used to do special handling if needed. >> - If the device does NOT support the REPORT_LUNS scan, we won't >> see any LUN at all, as we don't even look for LUN 1 then. > > In kernel 2.6.16, sequential_lun_scan() had a argument, lun0_res, > and lun >=1 was not recognized when lun0 was not attached. Therefore, > it seems that BLIST_ATTACH_PQ3 was necessary to pretend lun0 exists. > > But if those two are the only reason to be solved, I don't think > BLIST_ATTACH_PQ3 is necessary for storages which can handle REPORT_LUNS. > > As you mentioned, leaving BLIST_ATTACH_PQ3 in the flag does not change > the original behaviour, but I hope the BLIST_ATTACH_PQ3 flag is removed > from OPEN-E so that lun0 is not installed when a storage returns PQ3 as > other storages. I will evaluate BLIST_ATTACH_PQ3 flags on our storages, and post the result here. Please give me some time. Thanks, Taka -- 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
