On Sat, 2018-12-01 at 15:59 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 12/1/18 12:34 AM, David Disseldorp wrote:
> > Initialise the t10_wwn vendor, model and revision defaults when a
> > device is allocated instead of when it's enabled. This ensures that
> > custom vendor or model strings set prior to enablement are not later
> > overwritten with default values.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: David Disseldorp <dd...@suse.de>
> > ---
> > drivers/target/target_core_device.c | 34
> > +++++++++++++++++-----------------
> > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > > diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_device.c
>
> b/drivers/target/target_core_device.c
> > index 5512871f50e4..6318d59a1564 100644
> > --- a/drivers/target/target_core_device.c
> > +++ b/drivers/target/target_core_device.c
> > @@ -810,6 +810,23 @@ struct se_device *target_alloc_device(struct se_hba
> > *hba, const char *name)
> > mutex_init(&xcopy_lun->lun_tg_pt_md_mutex);
> > xcopy_lun->lun_tpg = &xcopy_pt_tpg;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Preload the initial INQUIRY const values if we are doing
> > + * anything virtual (IBLOCK, FILEIO, RAMDISK), but not for TCM/pSCSI
> > + * passthrough because this is being provided by the backend LLD.
> > + */
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(dev->t10_wwn.vendor) != INQUIRY_VENDOR_LEN + 1);
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(dev->t10_wwn.model) != INQUIRY_MODEL_LEN + 1);
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(dev->t10_wwn.revision) != INQUIRY_REVISION_LEN + 1);
> > + if (!(dev->transport->transport_flags & TRANSPORT_FLAG_PASSTHROUGH)) {
> > + strlcpy(dev->t10_wwn.vendor, "LIO-ORG",
> > + sizeof(dev->t10_wwn.vendor));
> > + strlcpy(dev->t10_wwn.model, dev->transport->inquiry_prod,
> > + sizeof(dev->t10_wwn.model));
> > + strlcpy(dev->t10_wwn.revision, dev->transport->inquiry_rev,
> > + sizeof(dev->t10_wwn.revision));
> > + }
> > +
> > return dev;
> > }
> >
>
> This is odd. I'd rather have it consistent across backends, ie either
> move the initialisation into the backends, or provide a means to check
> if the inquiry data has already been pre-filled.
> But this check really is awkward.
Agreed. I also would like to see that that if-condition is removed ...
Thanks,
Bart.
