On Thu, 2013-04-11 at 16:52 -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote: > What happened to this patch? The trail of suggested fixes for the > REPORT LUNS > DATA HAS CHANGED check condition is getting pretty long. The number of devices > (our product included) in the field that have the ability to on the fly modify > the luns on an I_T nexus is not decreasing.
I haven't heard back about it. If some people would ACK it I think that would help. I also submitted a separate patch for automatic LUN removal. > > Is it because these patches are trying to fix more than one thing? > > What is the preferred way to fix this? > > Why not simply add a couple sdev_evt_send_simple()'s and an event > coalesce > function to collapse this event when its received from multiple LUNs on the > I_T? A couple extra uevents isn't going to kill udev right? Well, the patch does that, among other things. I think handling the other UA codes is a good idea, because existing LUNs can be reconfigured. Coalescing events in the kernel is necessary because udev couldn't handle a large number of events from a big storage configuration. > A really > fancy > patch could attempt to clear the check conditions from LUNs that share the > I_T. I think the mid-layer will handle that automatically. If check conditions are reported the commands will have to be reissued. -Ewan > > > > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
