Hi Hannes,
Thanks for the feedback...
On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 15:59:25 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 12/1/18 12:34 AM, David Disseldorp wrote:
...
> > @@ -810,6 +810,23 @@ struct se_device *target_alloc_device(struct se_hba
> > *hba, const char *name)
> > mutex_init(&xcopy_lun->lun_tg_pt_md_mutex);
> > xcopy_lun->lun_tpg = &xcopy_pt_tpg;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Preload the initial INQUIRY const values if we are doing
> > + * anything virtual (IBLOCK, FILEIO, RAMDISK), but not for TCM/pSCSI
> > + * passthrough because this is being provided by the backend LLD.
> > + */
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(dev->t10_wwn.vendor) != INQUIRY_VENDOR_LEN + 1);
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(dev->t10_wwn.model) != INQUIRY_MODEL_LEN + 1);
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(dev->t10_wwn.revision) != INQUIRY_REVISION_LEN + 1);
> > + if (!(dev->transport->transport_flags & TRANSPORT_FLAG_PASSTHROUGH)) {
> > + strlcpy(dev->t10_wwn.vendor, "LIO-ORG",
> > + sizeof(dev->t10_wwn.vendor));
> > + strlcpy(dev->t10_wwn.model, dev->transport->inquiry_prod,
> > + sizeof(dev->t10_wwn.model));
> > + strlcpy(dev->t10_wwn.revision, dev->transport->inquiry_rev,
> > + sizeof(dev->t10_wwn.revision));
> > + }
> > +
> > return dev;
> > }
> >
> This is odd. I'd rather have it consistent across backends, ie either
> move the initialisation into the backends, or provide a means to check
> if the inquiry data has already been pre-filled.
> But this check really is awkward.
Not quite sure I follow here. I could the default setting to the
target_backend_ops.alloc_device() code paths, but I don't think the
duplication would make this much cleaner, if at all.
I can look into this further if you like (target_backend_ops.inquiry_rev
could be dropped that way), but my preference would be to do so as a
follow-up patch-set.
Cheers, David
