James Bottomley wrote: > On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 11:55 -0600, Michael Reed wrote: >> Yeah. I'm working on a patch for qla1280.c also. Probably others >> have been hit. It would have been nice if the patch author had >> fixed all the drivers instead of introducing this change and waiting >> for people to discover their last lun is now missing. > > Actually, lets just revert this: > > commit 71c309995bff5b5e84253931888b6e8163ee1df0 > Author: Ed Lin <ed.lin@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri Oct 9 15:23:27 2009 -0700 > > [SCSI] fix inconsistent usage of max_lun > > Which is causing all the problems. Perhaps we need to update the > documentation instead? > > James As much as I would whine about it, I think moving to a consistent usage of max_lun is a good thing. There are only about 140 references to max_lun in the cscope output so it wouldn't be that difficult for people to go through and fix up their drivers. And, I suspect a good portion will not require any change as they already either work correctly with sequential lun scan by design or have misinterpreted the meaning of max_lun, and thus will continue to work correctly with report lun scan with Mr. Lin's patch applied. I won't pretend to know the right answer. Mike > > > -- > 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 -- 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
