Garrett D'Amore wrote: > John Forte wrote: >> Garrett D'Amore wrote: >>> In principle this looks good, and I'm almost ready to +1 it, but I >>> have a few questions first: >>> >>> 1) I don't know enough about the FC protocol... will forcing target >>> ports to reinitialize have any negative implications for the >>> initiators? I'd like to understand the ramifications of any side >>> effects. >> The initiators will get a RSCN (Remote State Change Notification) >> from the FC switch, which will generally cause them to rediscover for >> any changes to the fabric, which is generally the desired behavior >> from the administrator issuing this command. > > Does this have negative implications for any in-flight I/O? (I.e. is > this command potentially destructive?) Are the implications > restricted to just the target being reinitialized? (Sorry if it > sounds like I'm being paranoid here, but to a certain extent a little > paranoia can be helpful. :-) If its potentially destructive, then I'd > like to have a warning issued to the administrator first. If it can't > be destructive, then we needn't worry about it. Likely a bit disruptive but it shouldn't be destructive. Certainly the target port will re-initialize it's login with the switch. When this command was first implemented in luxadm, FC switched fabrics did not exist and it was much more disruptive in that it forced every participating port in the fibre channel arbitrated loop to renegotiate. That is no longer the case with switched fabrics in FC. I think at most we should have the documentation for the subcommand indicate the appropriate warnings to the extent that it will result in an RSCN from the switch to all zoned initiators. My preference would be to not have a warning issued to the administrator forcing a confirmation prior to executing the initialization of the link. I think FC administrators are generally savvy enough to understand the meaning of this operation and when it should be used as well as what impact it's likely to have. My opinion is anything more than a documented warning would be annoying.
- John
