[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56941918.80806@sandisk.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:05:28 -0800
From: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>
To: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...erainc.com>,
target-devel <target-devel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagig@...lanox.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
Andy Grover <agrover@...hat.com>,
Vasu Dev <vasu.dev@...ux.intel.com>, Vu Pham <vu@...lanox.com>,
Nicholas Bellinger <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-v2 1/4] tcm_fc: Convert acl lookup to modern
get_initiator_node_acl usage
On 01/10/2016 12:28 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> This patch does a simple conversion of tcm_fc code to use
> proper modern core_tpg_get_initiator_node_acl() lookup using
> se_node_acl->acl_kref, and drops the legacy list walk from
> ft_acl_get().
>
> Note the original lookup also took node_name into account,
> but since ft_init_nodeacl() only ever sets port_name for
> se_node_acl->acl_group within configfs, this is purely
> a mechanical change.
Hi Nic,
This patch modifies ft_prli_locked() such that the ACL list lookup only
happens if FC_SPP_EST_IMG_PAIR has been set by the initiator. That is a
behavior change and this has not been mentioned in the patch
description. I think the patch description should mention that behavior
change and also that it should explain why that behavior change is
acceptable - if it is acceptable.
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists