Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] nvme-fcloop: verify wwnn and wwpn format | From | Hannes Reinecke <> | Date | Thu, 4 Jun 2020 16:03:38 +0200 |
| |
On 6/4/20 8:54 AM, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote: > On 6/3/20 11:46 PM, Dongli Zhang wrote: >> May I get feedback for this? >> >> For the first time I use fcloop, I set: >> >> # echo "wwnn=0x3,wwpn=0x1" > /sys/class/fcloop/ctl/add_target_port >> >> However, I would not be able to move forward if I use "0x3" or "0x1" for nvme-fc >> target or host further. Instead, the address and port should be >> 0x0000000000000003 and 0x0000000000000001. >> >> This patch would sync the requirements of input format for nvme-fc and >> nvme-fcloop, unless this would break existing test suite (e.g., blktest). > If I remember correctly I don't think we have fc-loop testcases (correct > me if I'm wrong). > Well, I sent some testcases a while back (cf 'fcloop and ANA fixes'). Should I resend them?
> Not an fc expert, but having uniform format for the input make sense to > me (unless there is an explicit reason). I'll let James have a final say. >
I would stick to use the full 64bit number for both wwpn and wwnn; one gets into too many arguments otherwise (big-endian? little-endian?). And one could argue that '0x0000000000000001' is invalid anyway as per FC-FS3 a '0' in word 0 byte 0 means 'Name not present' :-)
Cheers,
Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke Teamlead Storage & Networking hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
| |