[linux-iscsi-users] Re: [Iscsitarget-devel] Strange iSCSI / IET Behavior [Errors when Writing]

[Arne R. <ag...@po...>]

Hi Nicholas,

Am Donnerstag, den 30.03.2006, 11:07 -0800 schrieb Nicholas A.
Bellinger:
> Greetings Arne,
> 
> Sorry for the delay on this, I have been backlogged recently..
> 
> On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 17:44 +0200, Arne Redlich wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, den 28.03.2006, 10:04 -0500 schrieb Ming Zhang:
> > > @Arne, could you help me to check this as well.
> > > 
> > > i guess ietd.conf does not contain this parameter, so it is left to
> > > default and thus iet does not declare it. but core-ini does not use
> > > default value 8192 as the maxrecvdsl for ini, i guess it uses what it
> > > declared.
> > 
> > Yep, that's rather likely. At least core-iscsi 1.6.2.2 had this bug:
> > http://groups.google.com/group/Core-iSCSI/browse_frm/thread/a0b66ade9417b738/79c039a6a2f7a940#79c039a6a2f7a940
> > 
> > Skimming through the changelogs of 1.6.2.{3,4}, it doesn't look as if it
> > has been fixed. Nicholas?
> > 
> 
> Correct, I was waiting for a bit of additional feedback when the patch
> was originally posted by Tony Battersby a few months back, and Bill
> Studenmund recently gave a confirmation on this.  I have not applied the
> patch in its current form (because it was using CPP defines) but I will
> take a look at saving both sides declared values and using these instead
> of CONN_OPS(conn)->MaxRecvDataSegmentLength in the transmit cases.

Yep, I noticed that the patch wasn't mergable as it was, but during my
initial reading of the thread I must have somehow fallen victim to the
misconception that you actually agreed it was a bug and were going to
fix it - otherwise I would have pinged you earlier. ;-)

Re-reading it now, I don't know how I got that impression ...

Arne