On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 04:58:48PM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [CC'ing linux-scsi as well -- I think we'll get better insight from = > there] > > OK, but is this a valid assumption? What happens for iSCSI and/or iSER?
>From Mike's response I understand that it is a reasonable behavior to keep the host (at least for a period of time) and let the userspace daemon be responsible to the reconnection or deallocating of that host. > > How does the daemon know when something is gone for good vs. when it > might come back? > I think we should use a time out in the daemon. > > Why does userspace need to be able to disconnect a connection? > There are two options on who will initiate the disconnection: the userspace daemon or the ib_srp module. I considered both options and I was not sure which one is better. I choose to do it in userspace because it looks a good symmetry that both the disconnection and reconnection will be initiate in the same place. I will accept your comment and change it to the kernel. > > Why the asymmetry here? In other words, why does anything work for > reconnect_target but only the literal "erase" work for erase_target? > Because erase_target is a destructive command that can not be reversed I think it should use a more safe approach. -- Ishai Rabinovitz _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
