Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1288953 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lee Duncan <lduncan@suse.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-10 22:50 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-12-17 20:30 +0100 |
| Articles | 7 — 4 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCHv4 1/1] SCSI: hosts: update to use ida_simple for host_no management Lee Duncan <lduncan@suse.com> - 2015-12-10 22:50 +0100
Re: [PATCHv4 1/1] SCSI: hosts: update to use ida_simple for host_no management Ewan Milne <emilne@redhat.com> - 2015-12-11 16:40 +0100
Re: [PATCHv4 1/1] SCSI: hosts: update to use ida_simple for host_no management Lee Duncan <lduncan@suse.com> - 2015-12-13 20:20 +0100
Re: [PATCHv4 1/1] SCSI: hosts: update to use ida_simple for host_no management Ewan Milne <emilne@redhat.com> - 2015-12-14 16:10 +0100
Re: [PATCHv4 1/1] SCSI: hosts: update to use ida_simple for host_no management Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> - 2015-12-14 16:30 +0100
Re: [PATCHv4 1/1] SCSI: hosts: update to use ida_simple for host_no management "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com> - 2015-12-15 03:00 +0100
Re: [PATCHv4 1/1] SCSI: hosts: update to use ida_simple for host_no management Lee Duncan <lduncan@suse.com> - 2015-12-17 20:30 +0100
| From | Lee Duncan <lduncan@suse.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-10 22:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCHv4 1/1] SCSI: hosts: update to use ida_simple for host_no management |
| Message-ID | <qEhg6-3j4-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
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? -- Lee Duncan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ewan Milne <emilne@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-11 16:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCHv4 1/1] SCSI: hosts: update to use ida_simple for host_no management |
| Message-ID | <qExXA-6lB-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1288953 |
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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lee Duncan <lduncan@suse.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 20:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qFklz-3Zf-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1289689 |
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. -- Lee Duncan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ewan Milne <emilne@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-14 16:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCHv4 1/1] SCSI: hosts: update to use ida_simple for host_no management |
| Message-ID | <qFCVb-7NZ-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1290677 |
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. -Ewan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-14 16:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qFDey-7Vd-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1291251 |
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) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 03:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCHv4 1/1] SCSI: hosts: update to use ida_simple for host_no management |
| Message-ID | <qFN4d-5Oz-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1291276 |
>>>>> "Hannes" == Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> writes: >> 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. Hannes> Agreeing with Ewan here. Hannes> I guess it's up to you to tell us whether you absolutely need a Hannes> module parameter ... Still not a big ida fan but since the most people seem to be in favor of this I guess I'll have to bite the bullet. I don't see much value in the module parameter since it will require customers to tweak their configs and reproduce. Not worth the hassle. -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lee Duncan <lduncan@suse.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 20:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qGMps-3Er-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1291767 |
On 12/14/2015 05:55 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: >>>>>> "Hannes" == Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> writes: > >>> 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. > > Hannes> Agreeing with Ewan here. > > Hannes> I guess it's up to you to tell us whether you absolutely need a > Hannes> module parameter ... > > Still not a big ida fan but since the most people seem to be in favor of > this I guess I'll have to bite the bullet. > > I don't see much value in the module parameter since it will require > customers to tweak their configs and reproduce. Not worth the hassle. > Thank you Martin. I'll look at further cleaning up the host module, but I think this still much better than leaving the code as is. -- Lee Duncan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web