Re: [PATCH 2/2] target: make pgr_support and alua_support attributes writable

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

On 04/04/20 19:54, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
Hi,

On 04/03/20 19:19, Michael Christie wrote:
On 04/03/2020 09:32 AM, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
  /*
   * dev_attrib attributes for devices using the target core SBC/SPC
diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_pscsi.c b/drivers/target/target_core_pscsi.c
index 4e37fa9b409d..e7d92ef43ca4 100644
--- a/drivers/target/target_core_pscsi.c
+++ b/drivers/target/target_core_pscsi.c
@@ -1073,6 +1073,7 @@ static const struct target_backend_ops pscsi_ops = {
      .transport_flags_default = TRANSPORT_FLAG_PASSTHROUGH |
                     TRANSPORT_FLAG_PASSTHROUGH_ALUA |
                     TRANSPORT_FLAG_PASSTHROUGH_PGR,
+    .transport_flags_changeable = TRANSPORT_FLAG_PASSTHROUGH_PGR,
      .attach_hba        = pscsi_attach_hba,
      .detach_hba        = pscsi_detach_hba,
      .pmode_enable_hba    = pscsi_pmode_enable_hba,

Do we need more code to support this?

For example, if LIO core is now handling PRs then it uses the I_T nexus
info from LIO core for registrations if its not provided in the PR
command. But port/target INQUIRY info would be from the struct
scsi_device that pscsi is using since we pass INQUIRY down to that
device. We will end up with mismatches where a PR-in READ_FULL_STATUS
would return different results than the INQUIRY.

You are right. There is something missing.

Would it be a good idea to check and change INQUIRY response and
maybe responses from further commands (MODE SENSE, ...) according to
in core data?

I think, such a "post processing" function for responses would be useful
for tcmu also when emulating pr in core. Otherwise userspace needs to
gather information from sys-FS and maybe additionally needs to have
per command nexus info to provide consistent responses. To me that
doesn't sound like a complete "in core pr emulation".

Btw, I think it would be helpful as a first part for ALUA also.

Thank you,
Bodo

Such kind of "post processing" looks like a bigger effort.
Would you agree if I resend the patch without the hunk that makes
TRANSPORT_FLAG_PASSTHROUGH_PGR changeable for pscsi?

Then the new code can be implemented later and the changeable flag
for pscsi might be acceptable after that.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux SCSI]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux