[Stgt-devel] segfault in the ssc code ...
Sun Jul 27 18:49:01 CEST 2008
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:14:25 -0700
"Richard Sharpe" <realrichardsharpe at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 4:56 PM, FUJITA Tomonori
> <fujita.tomonori at lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> > From: "Richard Sharpe" <realrichardsharpe at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Stgt-devel] segfault in the ssc code ...
> > Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:40:59 -0700
> [trim, trim, trim ...]
> >> >> I was wondering if this change would do the trick:
> >> >>
> >> >> In usr/smc.c, change set_slot_full to take a target structure as well
> >> >> as the other args, and from that call tgt_set_device_path_update,
> >> >> which will also call the correct things ...
> >> >>
> >> >> and in set_slot_empty, also call tdt_set_device_path_update ...
> >> >
> >> > When I put this bit into the code, I was thinking something like "exec
> >> > tgtadm .... <with options to update backing store>"
> > Agreed, I like that.
> Why do you want to exec tgtadm again when this code is running in the
> context of tgtd and is simply executing an SMC request to load a tape
> into the drive.
> Why not expose the correct method in target.c and have the code call it ...
In general, I like an explicit initialization rather than an automatic
initialization. The latter option makes me nervous if it might break
my data wrongly.
But I have no strong preference about this. Anything is fine by me as
long as the majority of people on the list are happy.
More information about the stgt