[7999] in linux-scsi channel archive
Re: Skipping LUN 0?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fredrik Lundholm)
Thu Feb 3 18:31:03 2000
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 00:23:08 +0100
From: Fredrik Lundholm <exce7@ce.chalmers.se>
To: Eric Youngdale <eric@andante.org>
Message-ID: <20000204002308.A28757@ce.chalmers.se>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <000f01bf6c68$efc44840$0f17a8c0@eric.home>; from eric@andante.org on Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 11:00:54PM -0500
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 11:00:54PM -0500, Eric Youngdale wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Frey" <bobfrey@home.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 8:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Skipping LUN 0?
[...]
> Anyways, my long-winded answer is that I gather from what you are saying
> above that we should first do an INQUIRY, and if the INQUIRY succeeds, then
> we perform a scan on all luns for the device in question.
But is INQUIRY required to return valid should the device be busy?
The scsi-I standard recommends INQUIRY to return data even though
the peripheral device may not be ready for other commands, but is
this assesment true in reality? has this changed in scsi-II/III??
I don't know how the TUR command messes up multi-changer devices.
Is there still a gain if we must resort to issue INQUIRY (for each possible
id/lun) instead of TUR/INQUIRY?
BTW, in linux 2.0 kernels these commands are lauched from the
scan_scsis_single function. (in the file drivers/scsi/scsi.c-file)
/wfr Fredrik
exce7@ce.chalmers.se
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
