Bhanu Gollapudi wrote:
> Hi Joe,
> 
> Thanks a lot for reviewing the patches and providing valuable feedback.
> I'll incorporate required changes and resend the patches soon.

Thanks.  See more below.

> On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 16:30 -0700, Joe Eykholt wrote:
>> Joe Eykholt wrote:
>>> Joe Eykholt wrote:
>>>> Bhanu Gollapudi wrote:
>>>>> Unsolicited PRLO is now handled by sending LS_ACC and then
>>>>> re-login to the target port.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bhanu Prakash Gollapudi <[email protected]>
>>>>  From FC-LS-1.2 and 1.3, the PRLO LS_ACC response
>>>> should have a parameter response page
>>>> with a response code, and a payload length field of 20,
>>>> so it's not as simple as using seq_els_rsp_send().
>>>>
>>>> I think that's why it did reject before ... it was a cheat.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise it looks good.
>>> Actually, on further reading, table 3 in FC-LS-3 says that
>>> a process login is required for PRLO, so the existing case
>> I should've said "a N_Port Login is required for PRLO".
>>
>>> in fc_rport_recv_els_req() was correct.  The requestor
>>> should handle a reject with reason unable, and
>>> the explanation "Port login required".
> 
> I interpreted "a N_Port Login is required" as a session is required
> beteen the initiator and the target. As long as the initiator logged in
> (PLOGI, PRLI) the target can send a PRLO.
> 
> As per FC-LS section 6.3 "N_Port Login between two Nx_Ports is complete
> when each Nx_Port has received the Service Parameters of the other
> Nx_Port. This may be accomplished by either implicit or explicit N_Port
> Login"
> 
> So, I interpret that the PRLO can be sent by the target even if it didnt
> originate the PLOGI.  Please let me know your thoughts.

I agree with that interpretation, but if we don't find the rdata, then
either the rport was logged out by sending a LOGO, or neither side sent
a PLOGI, so the reject we generated in that case was appropriate.

        Regards,
        Joe

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Reply via email to