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.