linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv4 1/1] SCSI: hosts: update to use ida_simple for host

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:29:25 +0100
From:	Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
To:	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc:	emilne@...hat.com, Lee Duncan <lduncan@...e.com>,
	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 12/14/2015 04:07 PM, Ewan Milne wrote:
> 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.
>
Agreeing with Ewan here.

Martin, I guess it's up to you to tell us whether you absolutely 
need a module parameter ...

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		               zSeries & Storage
hare@...e.de			               +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
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/