From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Markus Lidel <Markus.Lidel@shadowconnect.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Warren Togami <wtogami@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Merge I2O patches from -mm
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:17:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040817161742.B22892@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <412208A6.7020104@shadowconnect.com>; from Markus.Lidel@shadowconnect.com on Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 03:31:18PM +0200
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 03:31:18PM +0200, Markus Lidel wrote:
> > Now to i2o_scsi:
> > - the logic of "demand-allocating" Scsi_Hosts looks rather bad to me,
> > life would be much simpler with a Scsi_Host per i2o device.
>
> But wouldn't it be a waste of resources to allocate a Scsi_Host
> structure for every I2O device? Note that the i2o_scsi "sees" all disks
> even if they are in a RAID array, so in most cases there are at least 3
> Scsi_Host adapters...
I wouldn't wasted ressources but it seems Alan found another problem.
> We also now know which disk is on which controller, this information is
> lost with your approach...
You could still keep that information in your data structure. But what
do you actually need it for?
> > - the slave_configure/i2o_scsi_probe_dev logical is quite horriblebut
> > fortunately with the suggestion above it would just go away
>
> Yep, i know that it would be better to extend scsi_add_device, so it's
> possible to pass a pointer to i2o_scsi_slave_alloc. This is only a
> workaround, which breaks as soon as things are done in parallel :-(
Just keep some lookup data structure so you can find the device data
by host/target/lun numbers.
> > - the global list of hosts and wlaking it on exit is a very bad design,
> > that's something the ->remove callback should do on per-device basis
>
> But what if the I2O device isn't removed?
you're using the driver model, and that calls ->remove and every device
when the driver is unregistered.
> > - please reorder the functions a little so you don't need forward-declarations
>
> most of the forward-declarations are not needed at all, should i remove
> unneeded completely?
Yes, please.
Okay, some brainstorming to get the data structures and lookup right:
What really seems to miss in your model is a callback to i2o_scsi
from the main i2o code when a new i2o_controller is found, if you implemented
that we'd allocate/deallocate the Scsi_Host in that callback and
->probe/->remove could be sure it'd always have it.
Anyway, I think we could live without that.
i2o_scsi_get_host would get inlined into i2o_scsi_probe.
i2o_scsi_remove basically needs a full rewrite, you need to find a way
to store a scsi_device ini i2o_dev and it becomes completely trivial.
Not sure about how to sanitize the scsi_devie probing logic
in i2o_scsi_probe yet.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-08-17 15:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-08-15 10:15 Warren Togami
2004-08-17 2:15 ` Andrew Morton
2004-08-17 8:36 ` Markus Lidel
2004-08-17 11:53 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-08-17 13:31 ` Markus Lidel
2004-08-17 14:00 ` Alan Cox
2004-08-17 15:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-08-17 14:50 ` Alan Cox
2004-08-17 15:17 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2004-08-17 17:05 ` Markus Lidel
2004-08-17 16:56 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-08-17 18:37 ` Markus Lidel
2004-08-18 23:08 Markus Lidel
2004-08-18 23:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-08-18 23:33 ` Markus Lidel
2004-08-19 9:48 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-08-19 10:16 ` Markus Lidel
2004-08-19 10:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-08-19 11:54 ` Markus Lidel
2004-08-23 17:55 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-08-24 8:16 ` Markus Lidel
2004-08-24 12:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-08-24 16:00 ` Markus Lidel
2004-08-28 10:13 ` Warren Togami
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040817161742.B22892@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=Markus.Lidel@shadowconnect.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wtogami@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome