On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:59:54 +0200
Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 18:52:26 +0200
> > Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> + if (ret) {
> >> + eprintf("getnameinfo Faild=>%d: %s\n",
> >> + ret, gai_strerror(ret));
> >> + /* Let failure show in target traces */
> >> + strcpy(p, "getnameinfo_Faild");
> >
> > Hmm, you put "getnameinfo_Faild" in a buffer that will be sent to an
> > initiator? If so, it's unacceptable. Just use eprintf.
> >
>
> Otherwise this is very confusing to debug because the initiator gets
> half an address, and tries to go on and only fails down the ladder later
> which makes it hard to understand what fails. This way It showed in initiator
> traces and it is easy to diagnose.
>
> I got this idea from your code, just below you do:
> text_key_add(conn, key, "NotUnderstood");
"NotUnderstood" is legal in the iSCSI RFC. Anything that is not the
RFC is unacceptable.
> Should we do something like this? Is there a protocol text_key_add()
> we can use to denote proper failure here?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stgt" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
