On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 10:32:55AM +0800, Gris Ge wrote:
Hi Andy,
Thanks for the notice.
I have finished the targetd and lsm access group
create/delete/edit/list, and currently working on masking.
I will provide feedback once I tried all methods I am looking for.
Thank you again.
Best regards.
--
Gris Ge
Hi Andy,
I am working on masking issue.
But here are some issues I found for now:
1. NodeACLGroup.node_acls
A list of string(wwn).
# Renamed to NodeACLGroup.wwns?
TPG.node_acls
A list of NodeACL
2. NodeACL.mapped_luns
A list of MappedLUN
NodeACLGroup.mapped_luns
A list of MappedLUNGroup
# Renamed to NodeACLGroup.mapped_luns
3. User case of maintaining the consistance of mapping status.
Example:
Current debugfs status:
IQN_1 LUN_1
AG_1
INIT_2 LUN_2, LUN_3
INIT_3 LUN_2, LUN_3
Got a API request:
Map LUN_4 to INIT_2
Expected behaviour:
A. Raise error as INIT_2 is a member of Access Group. Refuse initiator
level mapping.
B. Map the LUN_4 to AG_1.
C. Map the LUN_4 to INIT_2 only and leave the mess to end-user.
Which layer should handle the check and error raise if needed?
A. user itself or upper app/lib.
B. targetd/targetcli
C. rtslibs
4. The 'lun' sometimes refer to LUN class object, while
sometimes refer to a integer number of target side LUN ID.
The 'mapped_lun' sometimes refer to object of MappedLUN or integer number of
host side LUN ID.
Thank you.
Best regards.
--
Gris Ge