From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Evers Subject: Re: [PATCH] iscsi_tcp: add write permission to max_lun Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:43:00 -0400 Message-ID: <502BFBC4.5030409@redhat.com> References: <1345030205-23393-1-git-send-email-revers@redhat.com> <1345047208.2976.71.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <502BCE5F.5060503@cs.wisc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36144 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751918Ab2HOTnL (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:43:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <502BCE5F.5060503@cs.wisc.edu> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Christie Cc: James Bottomley , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On 08/15/2012 12:29 PM, Mike Christie wrote: > On 08/15/2012 11:13 AM, James Bottomley wrote: >> On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 10:50 -0500, Michael Christie wrote: >>> On Aug 15, 2012, at 6:30 AM, Rob Evers wrote: >>> >>>> Add root write permission to iscsi_tcp max_lun parameter >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Rob Evers >>>> --- >>>> drivers/scsi/iscsi_tcp.c | 2 +- >>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/iscsi_tcp.c b/drivers/scsi/iscsi_tcp.c >>>> index 9220861..e8609a4 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/iscsi_tcp.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/iscsi_tcp.c >>>> @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ static struct scsi_host_template iscsi_sw_tcp_sht; >>>> static struct iscsi_transport iscsi_sw_tcp_transport; >>>> >>>> static unsigned int iscsi_max_lun = 512; >>>> -module_param_named(max_lun, iscsi_max_lun, uint, S_IRUGO); >>>> +module_param_named(max_lun, iscsi_max_lun, uint, S_IRUGO|S_IWUSR); >>> >>> >>> Looks ok. >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Mike Christie >> Is there a reason not to raise the limit globally within iSCSI? i.e. do > No reason that I know of now. > >> what everyone else does (usually 0xFFFF for a single level lun hierarchy >> or ~0 for don't care), rather than have to have them twiddle a hard to >> find constant, since that seems to be the intent of the patch. >> > Either is fine. Rob, do you want to do ~0 in your patch, because we do > not care. There is not a iscsi driver level side limitation. ok. I'll post another patch using ~0