On 7/13/10 10:23 AM, Vasu Dev wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 18:27 -0700, Bhanu Gollapudi wrote:
>> did = ntoh24(fh->fh_d_id);
>> - if (fc_frame_payload_op(fp) == ELS_LS_ACC&& did != 0) {
>> + if (!did) {
>
> Per FC-LS-2 6.2.2.3, the did should not be zero for LS_RJT but not sure
> if all switch really do that for FLOGI LS_RJT as they may simply respond
> to FLOGI SID=0, but any case I don't see any reason not to try LS_RJT if
> did is zero or any need to check did for LS_RJT, so perhaps did check
> should be left as-is as it was before along with LS_ACC.
I'd like to be sure we are never assigned an FC-ID of 0 in an accept
which would be confusing since we treat that as "not logged in".
I don't think it'll happen, though, and would certainly be due to
a broken switch or point-to-point peer.
>> + FC_LPORT_DBG(lport, "Bad FLOGI response\n");
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (fc_frame_payload_op(fp) == ELS_LS_ACC) {
>> flp = fc_frame_payload_get(fp, sizeof(*flp));
>> if (flp) {
>> mfs = ntohs(flp->fl_csp.sp_bb_data)&
>> @@ -1518,7 +1524,7 @@ void fc_lport_flogi_resp(struct fc_seq *sp,
>> struct fc_frame *fp,
>> }
>> }
>> } else {
>> - FC_LPORT_DBG(lport, "Bad FLOGI response\n");
>> + fc_lport_error(lport, fp);
>> }
>>
>
> No braces needed for single statement.
>
> Vasu
>
>> out:
>> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
