On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 18:31:38 +1000 Mark Harvey <markh794@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Probably, tgtd shouldn't set timeout. And tgtd also needs to pass > > through task management functions from initiators. > > > > The state of tgt pass though support is that it probably works, but it > > might useful on some cases. > > > I'm not really up on 'task management' so I'm not really in a position > to comment. e.g. ISCSI_OP_SCSI_TMFUNC for iSCSI. If an initiator sends ABORT_TASK, we need to pass though it. > What I was thinking would be a "good idea"(tm) is for the bs_sg to issue > a SCSI persistent reservation (exclusive) to the device under control, > allow tgt to handle SCSI persistent reservation per initiator. This > would prevent an application on the local host accessing the target > while under tgt control. But what we do if an initiator sends PR? I don't think we need to worry about local access. That's the responsibility of users. You can mess up disk even with it mounted. -- 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
