On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:42:04 +0200 Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> The dummy RAID controller serves 2 purposes: > >> (1) commands that are addressed to an inexistent LUN are redirected to it My purpose is redirecting appropriate commands (INQUIRY, REPORT_LUNS, anything else?). I'm lazy so tgt redirects all. I'm happy to accept a patch to fix it. > >> (2) it provides a LUN 0 by default which is required by the SCSI spec > >> . > >> > >> (1) is obviously wrong because instead of "wrong lun" "invalid cdb" is returned > >> to the initiator. A "shadow LUN" of type NO_LUN is now used for this purpose. > >> This LU uses bs_null as backingstore, so there are no idle threads spawned for > >> it (in contrast to the previous dummy raid controller at LUN 0). > >> > >> (2) confuses some OSes / users (Windows prompts for drivers, > >> Solaris repeatedly tries to online the LU, but does not succeed). I just tried OpenSolaris and it works (though it complains about lun 0). Maybe it finally learned the proper way? > >> It's now the user's responsibility to attach a LU to LUN 0 to adhere to the > >> SCSI spec (Solaris / WinXP don't insist, Linux does!). > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Arne Redlich <arne.redlich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > What was the final disposition on this patch. I've never seen an argument against it, I think that 'shadow lun' is hacky and I don't like to use that trick for poor OSes. > but it was never submitted either. Why not? > > The way I see it. It should be accepted. Since we have a configuration file arrangement > in place, which is the recommended way to work now days. And since we have "service" > scripts for major distros. Since when the configuration file is the recommended way? It's one option but not the recommended way. Configuration by hand should work well too. -- 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
