Yes you are right. Should do it right or not at all. I will look into doing this tomorrow. regards ronnie sahlberg On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 4:04 AM, FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 01:16:41 +0900 > FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:12:20 +1100 >> ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > From 17fdaf426120d6167b7f14068d7c6f4ca0322217 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> > From: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@xxxxxxxxx> >> > Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:07:00 +1100 >> > Subject: [PATCH] Add PREVENT/ALLOW MEDIUM REMOVAL and START STOP UNIT >> > >> > Implement logic for PAMR and SSU. >> > >> > Add a new attribute .prevent to track the allow prevent removal status of a LUN. >> > Implement PAMR and update the LUN attribute accordingly. >> > >> > Units where PAMR is set to prevent removal of the device can not be >> > made offline using tgtadm. Attempts to make the unit offline >> > will fail with a new TGTADM error to indicate there is a PAMR lock on the device. >> > >> > SSU attempts to "eject" the media will fail with a check condition >> > if the media is locked by PAMR. >> > >> > If SSU successfully "ejects" the media, we automatically set the LUN to "Offline". >> > >> > Update tgt_target_show_all() to show the PreventRemoval status for the LUN in the output. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@xxxxxxxxx> >> > --- >> > doc/tgtadm.8.xml | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > usr/mmc.c | 10 ++-------- >> > usr/sbc.c | 2 +- >> > usr/spc.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- >> > usr/target.c | 15 +++++++++++++-- >> > usr/tgtadm.c | 4 +++- >> > usr/tgtadm_error.h | 2 ++ >> > usr/tgtd.h | 5 +++++ >> > 8 files changed, 109 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) >> >> Thanks a lot! Another "TODO: implement properly" comment removal! >> >> SPC3 says: >> >> The prevention of medium removal shall begin when any application >> client issues a PREVENT ALLOW MEDIUM REMOVAL command with a PREVENT >> field of 01b or 11b (i.e., medium removal prevented). The prevention >> of medium removal for the logical unit shall terminate after: >> >> a) One of the following occurs for each I_T nexus that previously had >> medium removal prevented: >> A) Receipt of a PREVENT ALLOW MEDIUM REMOVAL command with a PREVENT >> field of 00b or 10b; >> B) An I_T nexus loss; or >> >> With the current code, even an I_T nexus that previously had NOT >> medium removal prevented can terminate the prevention of medium >> removal? Is that against the spec, No? > > And of course, we need to terminate the prevention of medium removal > when the I_T nexus that previously had medium removal prevented > loses. So I guess that we need some data structures per nexus for this > feature. -- 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
