Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 21:59:28 +0000 From: Stuart Henderson <sthen@naiad.eclipse.net.uk> To: Gerard Roudier <groudier@club-internet.fr> Cc: Wilko Bulte <wilko@yedi.iaf.nl>, George Morgan <gemorga2@vt.edu>, freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Rescan for Devices... Message-ID: <20000207215928.J18501@naiad.eclipse.net.uk> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.1000207221417.341A-100000@localhost>; from groudier@club-internet.fr on Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 10:55:33PM %2B0100 References: <20000207191037.A386@yedi.iaf.nl> <Pine.LNX.3.95.1000207221417.341A-100000@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 10:55:33PM +0100, Gerard Roudier wrote: > Problem is that the order of da# devices after first boot + scanbus 1 is > different from order after second boot + scanbus 1. > > I guess the reasons given that xpt_scan_bus() is scanning targets > (excepted the initiator obviously) in parallel. I would think that such a > concurrent target scanning can be faster than a sequential scanning, only > if some devices, that are too long for responding to SCSI commands used > for the probe, (probably INQUIRY) disconnect the BUS during the scan. But > if this happens, or if some devices are reporting transient problems, then > order of devices cannot be guaranteed on successive (reboots) + (re)scan > of BUS. > > In my opinion, an option that will allow to request a sequential BUS > (re)scan would be useful, not only for me. Would it not be more general (and apply also for unexpected conditions during initial system boot) to wire-down devices in kernel configuration? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000207215928.J18501>