On 08/15/2012 12:29 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
On 08/15/2012 11:13 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 10:50 -0500, Michael Christie wrote:
On Aug 15, 2012, at 6:30 AM, Rob Evers<revers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Add root write permission to iscsi_tcp max_lun parameter
Signed-off-by: Rob Evers<revers@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/scsi/iscsi_tcp.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/iscsi_tcp.c b/drivers/scsi/iscsi_tcp.c
index 9220861..e8609a4 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/iscsi_tcp.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/iscsi_tcp.c
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ static struct scsi_host_template iscsi_sw_tcp_sht;
static struct iscsi_transport iscsi_sw_tcp_transport;
static unsigned int iscsi_max_lun = 512;
-module_param_named(max_lun, iscsi_max_lun, uint, S_IRUGO);
+module_param_named(max_lun, iscsi_max_lun, uint, S_IRUGO|S_IWUSR);
Looks ok.
Reviewed-by: Mike Christie<michaelc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Is there a reason not to raise the limit globally within iSCSI? i.e. do
No reason that I know of now.
what everyone else does (usually 0xFFFF for a single level lun hierarchy
or ~0 for don't care), rather than have to have them twiddle a hard to
find constant, since that seems to be the intent of the patch.
Either is fine. Rob, do you want to do ~0 in your patch, because we do
not care. There is not a iscsi driver level side limitation.
ok. I'll post another patch using ~0
--
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
