On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:11:49PM -0400, Kevin
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 07:37:38PM +0300, Roman
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 11:14:37AM -0500, Kevin
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 01:45:33PM +0300, Roman
> 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 particular, I'm about to submit a driver for Hyper-V VMBus SCSI
> controller which is limited to 2 targets only).
> This series adds generic SCSI lun enumeration (either via REPORT LUNS
> command or sequentially trying every lun), and makes the respective
> drivers use it.
Thanks. Let me make sure I understand this series. Some scsi
controllers have hardware specific mechanisms for finding the number
of luns (usb-msc, megasas, pvscsi) and some controllers use a generic
REPORT LUNS mechanism (virtio-scsi, esp-scsi, usb-uas, mpt-scsi,
The basic difficulty with implementing REPORT LUNS in seabios is that
the code needs a "struct drive_s" to issue the REPORT LUNS command,
but since the drive parameters (or even the number of drives) aren't
known, a dummy "lun0" drive_s must be created just for REPORT LUNS.
Thus the series breaks the driver xxx_add_lun() functions into
xxx_init_lun() and xxx_add_lun() so that a dummy lun0 can be created.
An additional complexity is that the REPORT LUNS mechanism is broken
in current QEMU on lsi-scsi and mpt-scsi.
Your goal is to add support for "Hyper-V VMBus SCSI" which also
requires REPORT LUNS.
Is the above correct?
Absolutely. I couldn't have explained it better.
One minor nit is that, strictly speaking, the upcoming vmbus scsi driver
doesn't *require* REPORTS LUNS. It's just that it would be too limiting
if the users had to stick with lun #0 only like was currently the case
with other drivers: here the number of available targets was only 2, and
thus the number of BIOS-visible disks would be no more than that.
So I thought it was a good idea to start with a series that adds generic
lun enumeration to the SCSI layer, that would lift this limitation for
the future vmbus scsi and could benefit other drivers, too.
I have a few high-level comments on the series. I wonder if there is
a way to reduce the amount of control passing between the generic scsi
code and the driver code. Specifically, I wonder if the callback
function scsi_add_lun could be simplified. Some thoughts:
- instead of scsi_rep_luns_scan() being passed a callback, perhaps
introduce a scsi_get_luns() command that returns a malloc'd struct
containing the list of luns. The driver code could then iterate
over the list.
I considered this at first, but it looked like more boilerplate code in
the drivers so I decided to go with the callback.
- 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 scsi_sequential_scan in addition to
scsi_rep_luns_scan, I went ahead and did it. Yes the two places where
it's used in the patchset are the ones where REPORT LUNS is known to
fail due to QEMU issues. At least for mpt-scsi it increases the number
of drives supported by SeaBIOS with the existing QEMU (it supports 2
luns per target). And no, I don't see it as very important.
- instead of calling xxx_init_lun() in each
function, I wonder if the code would be simpler if it just memcpy'd
the tmpl_drv struct over and modified the lun parameter.
Quite possible. Note though that xxx_init_lun() is typically called in
two places: in xxx_add_lun() and xxx_scan_target(); in the latter it
initializes the on-stack temporary drive descriptor with the arguments
passed in. So the alternative you propose would imply open-coding the
template drive initialization in xxx_scan_target() and doing memcpy()
followed by setting lun# in xxx_add_lun(). Fine by me, too; let me know
if you want it coded like that.
Sorry I must've missed the verdict regarding this patchset. Are there
still concerns that need fixing on my part, or is it ok as is?