That sounds workable. What about when the last LUN is deleted? Would you shut down the sockets and disappear? And like you - my --force fix works for me! But that's not the way to do it. What would the "correct" way be? -----Original Message----- From: Boaz Harrosh [mailto:bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 11:23 AM To: Braun, David Cc: ronnie sahlberg; stgt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Why LUN0? On 12/10/2012 06:06 PM, Braun, David wrote: > > My --force patch (I'll submit it if you want) didn't exist until a few weeks ago. > I forgot to say. I think the real (proper) solution is that at time of "tgtadm of Target" we should not open up sockets and/or do anything. We should only allocate the structures and be in a "not-initialized" state. Then at tgtadm of LUN0 we will only then open-up network sockets and do all it does now at "tgtadm of target". So there is *no* more issues of targets without LUNs and all are happy. I never had time to code it because my current patch was just fine for my system, so it was never a priority. Cheers Boaz ��.n��������+%������w��{.n����� ��{ay� ʇڙ���f���h������_�(�階�ݢj"��������G����?���&��
