Re: [PATCH] iscsi_tcp: add write permission to max_lun

[Rob Evers <revers@redhat.com>]

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<revers@redhat.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Add root write permission to iscsi_tcp max_lun parameter
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Rob Evers<revers@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> 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<michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>
>> 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