RE: No LUNs detected with 2.6.1-mm4 qla2xxx / qla2300

* RE: No LUNs detected with 2.6.1-mm4 qla2xxx / qla2300
@ 2004-01-19 17:38 Andrew Vasquez
  2004-01-19 21:42 ` Michael W. Shaffer
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Vasquez @ 2004-01-19 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Michael W. Shaffer; +Cc: linux-scsi

On , linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org wrote:
> Ok, I don't know if this was the 'right' fix, but I noticed
> that the Kconfig file in the qla2xxx directory was different
> in the -b9 resync patchset, so I tried copying the old one
> back from the plain 2.6.1-mm4 tree, and now I got the
> modules built and installed.

I'll take a look at this.

> After enabling debugging and
> rebooting -- we now have LUNs! Attached is the output from
> /var/log/messages showing the -b9 module loading and finding
> the Nexsan arrays and their associated disk volumes. There
> are supposed to be two LUNs per array as shown, and now I
> have disk devices /dev/sdb - /dev/sde as expected. The
> unknown partition table comments are correct also, since
> I'm using the raw devices without any partitioning as
> members of RAID1 mirror sets.
>

Good.

> A couple of minor points:
> 
> - It appears that the patched driver still reports itself
>   as v8.00.00b8-debug, rather than b9.
> 

Thanks, will address in next resync

> - Someone noted this on the list before I think, but I also
>   noticed it: when you unload and re-load the qla2300 module,
>   it appears to not be decrementing some counter. The first
>   time, you get /proc/scsi/qla2xxx/2 and /proc/scsi/qla2xxx/3,
>   and the second time you get /4 and /5, and so forth, each
>   time you re-load. The logical names of the scsi devices
>   are not affected, just the numbers in the /proc/scsi/qla2xxx  
> directory. 
> 

It's my understanding that this is the expected behaviour.  
Note the following code from scsi_host_alloc() in hosts.c:

	...
	init_MUTEX(&shost->scan_mutex);

	shost->host_no = scsi_host_next_hn++; /* XXX(hch): still racy */

	...

scsi_host_next_hn is never decremented.

Regards,
Andrew Vasquez

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread