David Somayajulu wrote: > > I'm a little bothered that there's nothing that qualifies the driver > > to the shost before invoking the LLDD handler (e.g. driver has a > > signature, message header contains signature, and the two > must match). > The idea was to let the Low Level Driver validate the message > contents - > signature, etc. But that's the point - if we have a common action and a common point, lets do it once. Why have all LLDs perform the same kind of thing but in completely different manners ? And worse, what happens if one doesn't validate ? The check doesn't have to be extensive, and the LLD can certainly do more checks. > I would appreciate if you can explain your comment a bit more, if my > reasoning below does not suffice. I have already provided a function > "fc_host_post_vendor_event_to_pid() [in > scsi_transport_fc.c]", which enables > an LLD to post a message to a specific pid. This may be used > by the LLD to > send response messages to the pid, for command messages sent > by the pid. it's not about sending... What happens if the pid unexpectedly dies ? The event notices are an easy way to find out that it died - thus releasing the "cached pid", or terminating partial transactions, and not abusing the netlink socket with data destined to a dead pid. -- james s -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
