> From: Nicholas A. Bellinger [mailto:nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 5:45 PM > > 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..? > Acked by Robert Love <robert.w.love@xxxxxxxxx> ��.n��������+%������w��{.n����j� ����{ay� ʇڙ���f���h������_�(�階�ݢj"��������G����?���&��
