Am Donnerstag, den 26.11.2009, 20:07 +0900 schrieb FUJITA Tomonori: > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:27:37 +0200 > Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 11/26/2009 12:22 PM, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:08:21 +0200 > > > Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >> On 11/26/2009 10:13 AM, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > >>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:42:04 +0200 > > >>> Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >> Lets try and find an acceptable solution. What if we refuse any > > >> connections until we have the first LUN configured. I know how to do > > >> it in iscsi, is there a way to do it in a general way? > > > > > > OpenSolaris target implementation requests you to create a target > > > *with* a logical unit. It's another hacky solution. > > > > > > I don't think that we need to change the current way. > > > > What about a command line option for us users who would like not > > to see that tgt-LUN0. Would you accept a command line switch, off > > by default. Something like --hide-lun0 ? > > What I'm against is hacky code for shadow or hidden lun. I prefer to > keep the code clean rather than handle poor OSes kindly. IMHO it just expands the hack that is LUN 0, but hey, I'm biased. Since you obviously don't want to merge it as is: my patch also avoided spawning worker threads for this LUN 0 that end up doing nothing by setting the backing store to bs_null - can this be merged or does it conflict with 55b15d746fb ? Arne -- 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
