On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 7:52:39 PM UTC-8, Martin K. Petersen
wrote:
>
>
> > Please consider the v4 below with the lock added.
>
> Lee: Please re-review this given the code change.
>
Martin:
The recent change makes sense, so please still include my:
Reviewed-by: Lee Duncan
>
> >
> Please consider the v4 below with the lock added.
Lee: Please re-review this given the code change.
> From: Bharath Ravi
>
> Connection failure processing depends on a daemon being present to (at
> least) stop the connection and start recovery. This is a problem on a
> multipath scenario,
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 2:26 PM Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
wrote:
> Please consider the v4 below with the lock added.
>
Reviewed-by: Khazhismel Kumykov
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"open-iscsi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
Khazhismel Kumykov writes:
>> >> + if (!list_empty(>conn_list_err))
>> > Does this check need to be under connlock?
>>
>> My understanding is that it is not necessary, since it is serialized
>> against the conn removal itself, through the rx_mutex, it seemed safe to
>> do the verification
