[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5c58dfba0d564ed4b6959a0d478268b9@SN2PR03MB061.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 17:12:37 +0000
From: KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>
To: James Bottomley <jbottomley@...allels.com>
CC: "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
"ohering@...e.com" <ohering@...e.com>,
"hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: scanning for LUNs
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Bottomley [mailto:jbottomley@...allels.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 11:15 AM
> To: KY Srinivasan
> Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> devel@...uxdriverproject.org; ohering@...e.com; hch@...radead.org; linux-
> scsi@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: scanning for LUNs
>
> On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 08:12 -0700, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
> > Here is the code snippet for scanning LUNS (drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c in function
> > __scsi_scan_target()):
> >
> > /*
> > * Scan LUN 0, if there is some response, scan further. Ideally, we
> > * would not configure LUN 0 until all LUNs are scanned.
> > */
> > res = scsi_probe_and_add_lun(starget, 0, &bflags, NULL, rescan, NULL);
> > if (res == SCSI_SCAN_LUN_PRESENT || res ==
> SCSI_SCAN_TARGET_PRESENT) {
> > if (scsi_report_lun_scan(starget, bflags, rescan) != 0)
> >
> >
> > So, if we don't get a response while scanning LUN0, we will not use
> > scsi_report_lun_scan().
> > On Hyper-V, the scsi emulation on the host does not treat LUN0 as
> > anything special and we
> > could have situations where the only device under a scsi controller is
> > at a location other than 0
> > or 1. In this case the standard LUN scanning code in Linux fails to
> > detect this device. Is this
> > behaviour expected? Why is LUN0 treated differently here. Looking at
> > the scsi spec, I am not sure
> > if this is what is specified. Any help/guidance will be greatly
> > appreciated.
>
> Why don't you describe the problem. We can't scan randomly a bunch of
> LUNs hoping for a response (the space is 10^19). SAM thinks you use
> LUNW for this, but that's not well supported. We can't annoy USB
> devices by probing with REPORT LUNS, so conventionally most arrays
> return something for LUN0 even if they don't actually have one (That's
> what the peripheral qualifier codes are supposed to be about). We
> translate PQ1 and PQ2 to SCSI_SCAN_TARGET_PRESENT, which means no LUN,
> but there is a target to scan here.
>
> If you're sending back an error to an INQUIRY to LUN0, then you're out
> of spec. The SCSI standards say:
>
> SPC3 6.4.1: In response to an INQUIRY command received by an
> incorrect logical unit, the SCSI target device shall return the
> INQUIRY data with the peripheral qualifier set to the value
> defined in 6.4.2. The INQUIRY command shall return CHECK
> CONDITION status only when the device server is unable to return
> the requested INQUIRY data
Thanks James. I will further investigate the issue on our platform.
Regards,
K. Y
>
> James
>
>
> James
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists