On 7/20/2009 2:11 PM, 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.
Does the command reset the target port completely or just it's link to the host that sends the command? If you had a bad guy on a host and they continually reset a target port completely you could cause issues on other hosts. Not like other commands on other protocols couldn't do the same thing but you might want to warn folks in the man page. Something like, "This command will reset a storage target port impacting any host attached......" blah blah blah.
