On 12/17/10 5:46 AM, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Robert Love <robert.w.love@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 08:07 -0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
>>> The state machine of local port is freezed if it could not get ready,
>>> so thawing is necessary.
>>>
>> Please start putting a prefix "fcoe: ", "libfc: " or "libfcoe: " on your
>> patch titles. Also, please provide more meaningful commit messages. I
>> believe that I've pointed out these two issues with your patches before.
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Hillf Danton <dhillf@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_lport.c 2010-11-01 19:54:12.000000000 +0800
>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_lport.c 2010-12-17 00:08:06.000000000 +0800
>>> @@ -1514,11 +1514,11 @@ void fc_lport_enter_flogi(struct fc_lpor
>>>
>>> fc_lport_state_enter(lport, LPORT_ST_FLOGI);
>>>
>>> - if (lport->point_to_multipoint) {
>>> - if (lport->port_id)
>>> + if (lport->point_to_multipoint)
>>> + if (lport->port_id) {
>>> fc_lport_enter_ready(lport);
>>> - return;
>>> - }
>>> + return;
>>> + }
>>>
>>> fp = fc_frame_alloc(lport, sizeof(struct fc_els_flogi));
>>> if (!fp)
>>
>> We do not want to proceed with sending a FLOGI here when we're in
>> point-to-multipoint (VN2VN) mode. VN2VN is a mode where there is no
>> fabric and we FLOGI directly into the remote port. So for VN2VN the
>> FLOGI happens in the rport layer.
>
> How will lport get out of the LPORT_ST_FLOGI state then?
By getting a FLOGI accept. Why else would it need to?
What end-user problem are you trying to solve.
Also, I suggest *not* copying linux-scsi. This can be handled by
those subscribed to devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Joe
--
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
