From owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 4 04:13:57 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: scsi@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3E3616A482; Sun, 4 Jun 2006 04:13:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF5B43D49; Sun, 4 Jun 2006 04:13:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.14] (imini.samsco.home [192.168.254.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k544DnYE031455; Sat, 3 Jun 2006 22:13:54 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <44825EC6.6010506@samsco.org> Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 22:17:10 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050416 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matt Jacob References: <200606040305.k5435Nm3083345@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200606040305.k5435Nm3083345@freefall.freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.1.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: scsi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: changes to cam_xpt to support sequential scanning (!parallel) X-BeenThere: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SCSI subsystem List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 04:13:57 -0000 Matt Jacob wrote: > One solution that Scott suggested to some of the negotiation issues for > the MPT was to not do parallel problem, i.e., all targets in parallel. > > The patch at http://people.freebsd.org/~mjacob/CAM_PATCHES_FOR_SEQSCAN > > does just that and I've had quite good success with it so far. I add > a new flat, PIM_SEQSCAN, which cases xpt_scan_bus to *not* scan all > targets in parallel but rather to scan them sequentially. > > Comments? > > The code also does some cleanups under failure conditions. > > After a bit more testing I'd like to put this in if there are no > objections so I can get the mpt U320 stuff off my back for a while. I think that this is a good idea. It's a shame that we have to emulate Windows and Linux behaviour, but if it's needed then it's needed. Good job getting it figured out. Scott