[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1450105632.4091.17.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:07:12 -0500
From: Ewan Milne <emilne@...hat.com>
To: Lee Duncan <lduncan@...e.com>
Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 1/1] SCSI: hosts: update to use ida_simple for
host_no management
On Sun, 2015-12-13 at 11:16 -0800, Lee Duncan wrote:
> On 12/11/2015 07:31 AM, Ewan Milne wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 13:48 -0800, Lee Duncan wrote:
> >> On 11/17/2015 03:20 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "Lee" == Lee Duncan <lduncan@...e.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>> Lee> Martin: I will be glad to update the patch, creating a modprobe
> >>> Lee> parameter as suggested, if you find this acceptable.
> >>>
> >>> For development use a module parameter would be fine. But I am concerned
> >>> about our support folks that rely on the incrementing host number when
> >>> analyzing customer log files.
> >>>
> >>> Ewan: How do you folks feel about this change?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ewan?
> >
> >
> > Personally, I think having host numbers that increase essentially
> > without limit (I think I've seen this with iSCSI sessions) are a
> > problem, the numbers start to lose meaning for people when they
> > are not easily recognizable. Yes, it can help when you're analyzing
> > a log file, but it seems to me that you would want to track the
> > host state throughout anyway, so you could just follow the number
> > as it changes.
> >
> > If we change the behavior, we have to change documentation, and
> > our support people will get calls. But that's not a reason not
> > to do it.
> >
> > -Ewan
> >
>
> Ewan:
>
> Thank you for your reply. I agree with you, which is why I generated
> this patch.
>
> If we *do* make this change, do you think it would be useful to have a
> module option to revert to the old numbering behavior? I actually think
> it would be more confusing to support two behaviors than it would be to
> bite the bullet (so to speak) and make the change.
>
I'm not opposed to having the module option if others (Martin?) feel
they need it, but generally I think it's better to keep things as simple
as possible. So, unless there are strong objections, I would say no.
-Ewan
--
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