[stgt] Why LUN0?
bharrosh at panasas.com
Mon Dec 10 17:37:13 CET 2012
On 12/10/2012 06:28 PM, Braun, David wrote:
> That sounds workable.
> What about when the last LUN is deleted? Would you shut down the sockets and disappear?
Yes sure, same thing that is done today on "tgtadm remove target" should be
promoted to remove of last LUN.
> And like you - my --force fix works for me! But that's not the way to do it.
Actually it is not that bad in my opinion. I have not seen the actual code
but for me it kind of makes sense too. Unless code wise it's ugly, I couldn't
What if you don't do a --force option at all. What if like today the dummy-LUN0
will automatically be replaced by the first real LUN0 set by tgtadm? that sounds
even better but same as your solution.
Will you have a bit of time to work on this. Please CC me I'll review and test
> What would the "correct" way be?
either way for me apply, I think. It's your call.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stgt" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
More information about the stgt