John Forte wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>> In principle this looks good, and I'm almost ready to +1 it, but I
>> have a few questions first:
>>
>> 1) I don't know enough about the FC protocol... will forcing target
>> ports to reinitialize have any negative implications for the
>> initiators? I'd like to understand the ramifications of any side
>> effects.
> The initiators will get a RSCN (Remote State Change Notification) from
> the FC switch, which will generally cause them to rediscover for any
> changes to the fabric, which is generally the desired behavior from
> the administrator issuing this command.
Does this have negative implications for any in-flight I/O? (I.e. is
this command potentially destructive?) Are the implications restricted
to just the target being reinitialized? (Sorry if it sounds like I'm
being paranoid here, but to a certain extent a little paranoia can be
helpful. :-) If its potentially destructive, then I'd like to have a
warning issued to the administrator first. If it can't be destructive,
then we needn't worry about it.
>>
>> 2) Are any additional privileges required for this operation? What
>> are the privileges needed to perform this action?
> I believe sys_devices is required. Reed?
>>
>> 3) Will the luxadm version of the command be Obsoleted at some point?
> Yes, that was the plan as noted in the PSARC 2004/291. Forcelip
> functionality was one of the last (perhaps the last) reason to keep
> luxadm around.
Cool! Thanks for the clarification.
- Garrett
>
> - John
