Re: [PATCH 1/1] be2iscsi: add block valid bit to iBFT flag

[Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>]

On 01/12/2015 05:05 PM, Minh Duc Tran wrote:
> 
>> From: Minh Duc Tran 
>> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 10:52 PM
>> To: 'linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org'
>> Cc: Mike Christie (michaelc@cs.wisc.edu); Jayamohan Kallickal
>> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] be2iscsi: add block valid bit to iBFT flag
> 
>> From: Minh Tran minhduc.tran@emulex.com
> 
>>               We are starting to see problems with certain open-iscsi versions out there checking block valid bit.  Iscsi boot target login will not happen without this bit being set.
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Minh Tran <minhduc.tran@emulex.com>
>> ---
>> scsi/be2iscsi/be_main.c |    4 ++--
>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
>> diff --git a/scsi/be2iscsi/be_main.c b/scsi/be2iscsi/be_main.c
>> index 30d74a0..aacf223 100644
>> --- a/scsi/be2iscsi/be_main.c
>> +++ b/scsi/be2iscsi/be_main.c
>> @@ -429,7 +429,7 @@ static ssize_t beiscsi_show_boot_tgt_info(void *data, int type, char *buf)
>>                             auth_data.chap.intr_secret);
>>                break;
>>        case ISCSI_BOOT_TGT_FLAGS:
>> -               rc = sprintf(str, "2\n");
>> +               rc = sprintf(str, "3\n");
>>                break;
>>        case ISCSI_BOOT_TGT_NIC_ASSOC:
>>                rc = sprintf(str, "0\n");
>> @@ -466,7 +466,7 @@ static ssize_t beiscsi_show_boot_eth_info(void *data, int type, char *buf)
> 
>>        switch (type) {
>>        case ISCSI_BOOT_ETH_FLAGS:
>> -               rc = sprintf(str, "2\n");
>> +               rc = sprintf(str, "3\n");
>>                break;
>>        case ISCSI_BOOT_ETH_INDEX:
>>                rc = sprintf(str, "0\n");
>> --
>> 1.7.1
> 
> Hi Mike,
> I think we have lost track of this patch.  I've checked 3.19-rc3 today and it's not in yet.  Can we get this in as soon as possible?
> 

The thread got a little busted in my mailer, so I might have missed
something.

Did you see my review comments:
https://www.marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=141564103903024&w=2
here?

I am not seeing a follow up patch or comment from you saying you did not
want to do it that way. Did you send that to the list in a new thread?
If so, I lost it.