From owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 13 05:10:04 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-scsi@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6366F10656A3 for ; Wed, 13 May 2009 05:10:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 519228FC21 for ; Wed, 13 May 2009 05:10:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n4D5A4rv042765 for ; Wed, 13 May 2009 05:10:04 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n4D5A4NT042764; Wed, 13 May 2009 05:10:04 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 05:10:04 GMT Message-Id: <200905130510.n4D5A4NT042764@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.org From: Scott Long Cc: Subject: Re: kern/134488: [mpt] MPT SCSI driver probes max. 8 LUNs per device X-BeenThere: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Scott Long List-Id: SCSI subsystem List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 05:10:04 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/134488; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Scott Long To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, michel.bouissou@bioclinica.com Cc: Subject: Re: kern/134488: [mpt] MPT SCSI driver probes max. 8 LUNs per device Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 22:59:42 -0600 Increasing the max_lun number in the code is not the solution. Which arbitrary number should be chosen? If it's increased to 32, what about those who want 64? What about the problems created for those with older hardware that can't handle high lun scanning? The correct action requires a significant amount of code to be written and tested; if it were trivial it would have been done already. I know this response is unsatisfying and slightly aloof, and I apologize for that, but right now it's easier to ask that admins recompile for this situation than it is to tear up the core SCSI scanning code. Scott