On 01/08/2013 05:45 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
Hi MDR!
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 00:59 +0000, Rustad, Mark D wrote:
On 12/21/12 10:58 AM, "Mark Rustad" <mark.d.rustad@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The following patches make changes to the PRLI response
when tcm_fc is present. One patch clears the retry
capability when a target is available. The other
modifies the returned role to clear the target
role when no target is provided to the node issuing
the PRLI.
Are these changes right? Are they complete, or are
they maybe just a step in the right direction?
These arose from issues that Bhanu was seeing. He
has run these a bit, as have I, but they have not
yet been through any serious validation. I thought
it best to get more eyes on these before we go too
far in validating that may not be right.
---
Mark Rustad (2):
tcm_fc: Do not report target role when target is not defined
tcm_fc: Do not indicate retry capability to initiators
drivers/target/tcm_fc/tfc_sess.c | 12 +++++++++---
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Hmm. Still no response at all on these patches. I really would like a
little feedback on them.
<nod>, holding off on including these into target-pending/master for the
moment..
Ping Bhanu + Robert..?
Patches look good to me.
Reviewed-by: Bhanu Prakash Gollapudi <bprakash@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
--nab
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
