Re: [PATCH 2/5] scsi_scan: Restrict sequential scan to 256 LUNs

2014-05-22 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 01:03:08PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: Sequential scan for more than 256 LUNs is very fragile as LUNs might not be numbered sequentially after that point. SAM revisions later than SCSI-3 impose a structure on LUNs larger than 256, making LUN numbers between 256 and

[PATCH 2/5] scsi_scan: Restrict sequential scan to 256 LUNs

2014-05-20 Thread Hannes Reinecke
Sequential scan for more than 256 LUNs is very fragile as LUNs might not be numbered sequentially after that point. SAM revisions later than SCSI-3 impose a structure on LUNs larger than 256, making LUN numbers between 256 and 16384 illegal. SCSI-3, however allows for plain 64-bit numbers with no

Re: [PATCH 2/5] scsi_scan: Restrict sequential scan to 256 LUNs

2014-03-28 Thread Hannes Reinecke
On 03/27/2014 07:49 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:05:12PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: Sequential scan for more than 256 LUNs is very fragile as LUNs might not be numbered sequentially after that point. SAM revisions later than SCSI-3 impose a structure on LUNs

Re: [PATCH 2/5] scsi_scan: Restrict sequential scan to 256 LUNs

2014-03-28 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:22:15AM -0700, Hannes Reinecke wrote: Because there is no guarantee that pre-SCSI-3 devices (or devices announcing to be pre-SCSI-3) will not allow to scan more than 256 devices. Thinking of older Symmetrix here with their weird 'SPC-3 masking as SCSI-2' habit.

Re: [PATCH 2/5] scsi_scan: Restrict sequential scan to 256 LUNs

2014-03-28 Thread Hannes Reinecke
On 03/28/2014 05:47 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:22:15AM -0700, Hannes Reinecke wrote: Because there is no guarantee that pre-SCSI-3 devices (or devices announcing to be pre-SCSI-3) will not allow to scan more than 256 devices. Thinking of older Symmetrix here with

Re: [PATCH 2/5] scsi_scan: Restrict sequential scan to 256 LUNs

2014-03-27 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:05:12PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: Sequential scan for more than 256 LUNs is very fragile as LUNs might not be numbered sequentially after that point. SAM revisions later than SCSI-3 impose a structure on LUNs larger than 256, making LUN numbers between 256 and

[PATCH 2/5] scsi_scan: Restrict sequential scan to 256 LUNs

2013-12-10 Thread Hannes Reinecke
Sequential scan for more than 256 LUNs is very fragile as LUNs might not be numbered sequentially after that point. SAM revisions later than SCSI-3 impose a structure on LUNs larger than 256, making LUN numbers between 256 and 16384 illegal. SCSI-3, however allows for plain 64-bit numbers with no