On 12/22/2014 05:47 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
> On 12/19/2014 06:51 PM, John Soni Jose wrote:
>> @@ -5376,8 +5387,14 @@ beiscsi_hw_health_check(struct work_struct *work)
>> be_eqd_update(phba);
>>
>> if (phba->state & BE_ADAPTER_CHECK_BOOT) {
>> - phba->state &= ~BE_ADAPTER_CHECK_BOOT;
>> - be_check_boot_session(phba);
>> + if ((phba->get_boot > 0) && (!phba->boot_kset)) {
>> + phba->get_boot--;
>> + if (!(phba->get_boot % BE_GET_BOOT_TO))
>> + be_check_boot_session(phba);
>> + } else {
>> + phba->state &= ~BE_ADAPTER_CHECK_BOOT;
>> + phba->get_boot = 0;
>> + }
>> }
>
> Hey, I just want to make sure I am reading this patch correctly. If the
> user had the network up, but the target was not able to handle the login
> for longer than the timeout we are adding in this patch, then we will
> not be able to get any notification (the iscsi boot info would not show
> up in sysfs) later when we can login.
>
Actually, I think I am wrong. If we hit the above scenario, then
eventually the fw would log in and we would then get a
ASYNC_EVENT_NEW_ISCSI_CONN event right?
--
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
