From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luben Tuikov Subject: Re: Report luns [was: Apple Xserve RAID and qlogic ISP2312 (qla2300)] Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 17:07:16 -0500 Message-ID: <41913F94.4030003@adaptec.com> References: <20041028143734.GA16358@beaverton.ibm.com> <20041028153522.GC1915@astral.ro> <20041028164210.GA16905@beaverton.ibm.com> <20041028172143.GA20949@praka.san.rr.com> <20041029085800.GF6671@astral.ro> <20041029180633.GA27267@beaverton.ibm.com> <20041101105611.GJ22603@astral.ro> <20041101194845.GA27913@us.ibm.com> <41903031.3050205@torque.net> <4190DCE0.1070606@adaptec.com> <20041109211055.GA11459@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from magic.adaptec.com ([216.52.22.17]:8414 "EHLO magic.adaptec.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261722AbUKIWHc (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2004 17:07:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20041109211055.GA11459@us.ibm.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick Mansfield Cc: dougg@torque.net, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Patrick Mansfield wrote: > Do we also have to change to send the INQUIRY to the well known LUN? > > And then someday add black and white list flags and code for them ... > > Why is stuff like this even added to the standard??? Why not use LUN 0 > (all zeroes) or at worst have one well known LUN like the all f's? > > The hierarchical LUN stuff and the various address modes are dumb, just > treat the LUN as a tag/identifier (similiar to a TCP/IP network port) and > leave the interpretation of it up to the target device (or at worst the > transport). And I believe this is what a lot of vendors will do: support REPORT LUN on LUN 0 regardless if whether there's a device there or not. BTW the standard says "LUN 0 or REPORT LUNS W-LUN", so the vendors would take advantage of this for compatibility. Luben