On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 01:31:10AM +0800, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 01/03/2017 18:45, Roman Kagan wrote:
> > A number of SCSI drivers currently only see luns #0 in their targets.
> >
> > This may be a problem when drives have to be assigned bigger lun
> > numbers, e.g. because the storage
On 01/03/2017 18:45, Roman Kagan wrote:
> A number of SCSI drivers currently only see luns #0 in their targets.
>
> This may be a problem when drives have to be assigned bigger lun
> numbers, e.g. because the storage controllers don't provide enough
> target numbers to accomodate all drives.
>
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 07:34:32PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:54:03PM -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> > I was thinking the driver could have something like:
> >
> > struct scsi_luns *luns = scsi_get_luns();
> > for (i = 0; luns && i < luns->count; i++)
> >
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:54:03PM -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 06:31:29PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 06:16:04PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:11:49PM -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 06:31:29PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 06:16:04PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:11:49PM -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 07:37:38PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 06:16:04PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:11:49PM -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 07:37:38PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 11:14:37AM -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at
On 15/03/2017 12:33, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 07:13:19PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 14/03/2017 16:16, Roman Kagan wrote:
- if REPORT LUNS fails, then I don't think we need to iterate over
every possible lun. If this is just to workaround qemu issues, then
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 07:13:19PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 14/03/2017 16:16, Roman Kagan wrote:
> >> - if REPORT LUNS fails, then I don't think we need to iterate over
> >> every possible lun. If this is just to workaround qemu issues, then
> >> falling back to just using the first
On 14/03/2017 16:16, Roman Kagan wrote:
>> - if REPORT LUNS fails, then I don't think we need to iterate over
>> every possible lun. If this is just to workaround qemu issues, then
>> falling back to just using the first lun should be fine.
>
> Perhaps. As it was trivial to code
[ cc-ing my colleague Eugeniy who's interested in this discussion, too ]
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:11:49PM -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 07:37:38PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 11:14:37AM -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 07:37:38PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 11:14:37AM -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 01:45:33PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote:
> > > A number of SCSI drivers currently only see luns #0 in their targets.
> > >
> > > This may be a
On 03/02/17 20:48, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 06:20:29PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 03/01/17 11:45, Roman Kagan wrote:
>>> A number of SCSI drivers currently only see luns #0 in their targets.
>>>
>>> This may be a problem when drives have to be assigned bigger lun
>>>
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 06:20:29PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 03/01/17 11:45, Roman Kagan wrote:
> > A number of SCSI drivers currently only see luns #0 in their targets.
> >
> > This may be a problem when drives have to be assigned bigger lun
> > numbers, e.g. because the storage
On 03/01/17 11:45, Roman Kagan wrote:
> A number of SCSI drivers currently only see luns #0 in their targets.
>
> This may be a problem when drives have to be assigned bigger lun
> numbers, e.g. because the storage controllers don't provide enough
> target numbers to accomodate all drives.
> (In
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 11:14:37AM -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 01:45:33PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote:
> > A number of SCSI drivers currently only see luns #0 in their targets.
> >
> > This may be a problem when drives have to be assigned bigger lun
> > numbers, e.g.
15 matches
Mail list logo