Re: [PATCHv4 1/1] SCSI: hosts: update to use ida_simple for host_no management

[Hannes Reinecke]

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@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxx			               +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 NÃrnberg
GF: F. ImendÃrffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG NÃrnberg)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/