[stgt] Why LUN0?

[Boaz Harrosh]

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
tell.

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
your code.

> What would the "correct" way be?
> 

either way for me apply, I think. It's your call.

Thanks
Boaz

--
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