[illumos-Developer] issue 968 request for code review

[Thomas Joy]

Since the parameter is obsolete, I should think hard-coded would be
all right, but in the interest of robustness I'll see about putting it
in fct.conf.  And fixing the spelling.

In the meantime, I'd appreciate some feedback on whether this causes
problems on newer fibre channel networks.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steve Gonczi <gonczi at comcast.net>
Date: Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: [illumos-Developer] issue 968 request for code review
To: Thomas Joy <t.joy at deepserv.com>


Ideally, this value should be configurable instead of hard-coded.

BTW what the heck is preample?
(I am guessing whoever wrote the code meant
preamble )

/sG/

----- "Thomas Joy" <t.joy at deepserv.com> wrote:

yesterday I submitted this bug for the fct driver that affected my
organization's SAN, in particular a protocol beef between OI and a
brocade silkworm 3800.

t10.org released a document on 2005 that amended the FC standard to
increase interoperability, i've linked it in the bug report.

https://www.illumos.org/issues/968

I'd like to ultimately submit a patch to bring fct in line with the
2005 FC amendment.  I've built on this patch in the lab and it appears
to fix my problem very well.

here's the webrev:

http://cr.illumos.org/view/mwxjxrcc/