[illumos-Developer] issue 968 request for code review

[Albert Lee]

I'm strongly in favour of replacing the "preample" with a packed
structure with named fields. I see no compelling reason to make the
contents tunable since any necessary change implies an implementation
bug.

-Albert

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Thomas Joy <t.joy at deepserv.com> wrote:
> Since the parameter is obsolete, I should think hard-coded would be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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Developer mailing list
> Developer at lists.illumos.org
> http://lists.illumos.org/m/listinfo/developer
>