Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCHv4 1/1] SCSI: hosts: update to use ida_simple for host_no management | From | Hannes Reinecke <> | Date | Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:29:25 +0100 |
| |
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@suse.com> 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@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
| |