From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick Mansfield Subject: Re: Apple Xserve RAID and qlogic ISP2312 (qla2300) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:51:13 -0700 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20041028165113.GA16953@beaverton.ibm.com> References: <20041027233321.GA842@astral.ro> <20041028143734.GA16358@beaverton.ibm.com> <20041028153522.GC1915@astral.ro> <20041028164210.GA16905@beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.103]:39357 "EHLO e3.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261824AbUJ1Qvi (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:51:38 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041028164210.GA16905@beaverton.ibm.com> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Catalin Muresan , James Bottomley , Andrew Vasquez Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, bogdan.luca@astral.ro On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 09:42:10AM -0700, Patrick Mansfield wrote: > Hmmm ... my interpretation of DID_NO_CONNECT was that the adapter cannot > talk to the target at all. > > You should be able to send an INQUIRY to any LUN on a target, the HBA > really shouldn't block it. > > Given that, it is correct for the scan to give SCSI_SCAN_TARGET_PRESENT > on a DID_NO_CONNECT. Ooops, I meant to say SCSI_SCAN_NO_RESPONSE, that is: Given that, it is correct for the scan to give SCSI_SCAN_NO_RESPONSE on a DID_NO_CONNECT. > > So, it looks like the qlogic is giving a DID_NO_CONNECT when it should > not. We could hack around this in scsi_scan.c but that might be bad. > > James or Andrew what do you think?