On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 00:00:35 -0500, Mike Christie <mchristi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I just worry some users have set this and expect the extra layer of > checks. Now that you mention it, it is very possible indeed. The original code could help spot an initiator misconfiguration. > I can see how it is more convenient though. I think this is > something I really am not sure about because I have not worked on the > code for a long time. It is better if Nick were around. FWIW, I do not have a noteworthy use-case behind this - I merely have a home NAS with 2 LUNs exported. It is rather from a "I just noticed this going over the code and the RFC does not seem to require this" and a "I guess this confused/will confuse someone trying it out" point of view. > I saw some targets/initiators allow you to configure this type of thing > as optional where in that mode it works like in your patch. What about that? That would indeed be nicer than my patch. And then it can remain enforced by default. > I guess you can wait for other reviewers or maybe some distro packagers > to chime in too. I certainly can wait, yes. No worries. -- Vincent Pelletier
