On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:14:25 -0700 "Richard Sharpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 4:56 PM, FUJITA Tomonori > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: "Richard Sharpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [Stgt-devel] segfault in the ssc code ... > > Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:40:59 -0700 > > [trim, trim, trim ...] > > >> >> I was wondering if this change would do the trick: > >> >> > >> >> In usr/smc.c, change set_slot_full to take a target structure as well > >> >> as the other args, and from that call tgt_set_device_path_update, > >> >> which will also call the correct things ... > >> >> > >> >> and in set_slot_empty, also call tdt_set_device_path_update ... > >> > > >> > When I put this bit into the code, I was thinking something like "exec > >> > tgtadm .... <with options to update backing store>" > > > > Agreed, I like that. > > Why do you want to exec tgtadm again when this code is running in the > context of tgtd and is simply executing an SMC request to load a tape > into the drive. > > Why not expose the correct method in target.c and have the code call it ... In general, I like an explicit initialization rather than an automatic initialization. The latter option makes me nervous if it might break my data wrongly. But I have no strong preference about this. Anything is fine by me as long as the majority of people on the list are happy. _______________________________________________ Stgt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/stgt-devel
