Re: [Ips] lun reset and r2t error handling

[Julian Satran <Julian_Satran at il.ibm.com>]

some answers in text

ips-bounces at ietf.org wrote on 11/08/2009 23:56:10:

> From:
> 
> Mike Christie <mchristi at redhat.com>
> 
> To:
> 
> ips at ietf.org, Hannes Reinecke <hare at suse.de>, open-iscsi <open-
> iscsi at googlegroups.com>
> 
> Date:
> 
> 11/08/2009 23:57
> 
> Subject:
> 
> [Ips] lun reset and r2t error handling
> 
> Sent by:
> 
> ips-bounces at ietf.org
> 
> Hi,
> 
> For a single connection session with ERL=0 and without FastAbort,
if the 
> initiator has sent a lun reset task management function and the target
> has sent a R2T, is it ok for the target to send a task management
> response with Function Complete, before the initiator has sent the
> data-out pdus for the R2T? It looks like the reason the target will
do 
> this is due to a internal target timeout (target did not get the 
> data-outs within some timeout period).
> 
> If the target does return the task management function with Function
> Complete, should the initiator continue to respond to the R2Ts?
> 


The initiator doesn't have to send more data but since
more data may be still in flight
it shouldn't harm to send a "terminating"
Dataout. Target should behave OK in both cases.

> And one other question. In section 10.5.1, we have:
> 
>     The issuing initiator SHOULD however terminate (i.e.,
by setting the
>     F-bit to 1) these response sequences as quickly as possible.
> 
> Does this mean if we have sent a lun reset, and the target has sent
a 
> R2T, should we be setting the F-bit in the continued data-out PDU
so as 
> to end the transfer, even though actual data transfer has not been
> completed entirely?
Yes
> 
> What if we do send all the data like normal, should that still be
ok?
Yes - receivers are supposed to be lenient.
> _______________________________________________
> Ips mailing list
> Ips at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips