nvme-fc unregister remote port

[James Smart]

I'm leaning toward a new routine that is to delete all controllers to a 
remote port and block any new controllers from being created.  The new 
routine would be called prior to deregister.  This keeps the remote port 
active while all the deletes occur - which means all the paths that 
exist are still valid and don't need to change.

-- james


On 1/18/2018 8:23 AM, Trapp, Darren wrote:
> During the unload I am allowing the transport to cleanup before I logout.  I don’t want to start tearing
> down internally and return IO’s with errors to the transport and have it start error recovery
> since it doesn’t know what is going on.
>
> On 1/18/18, 8:18 AM, "James Smart" <james.smart at broadcom.com> wrote:
>
>      On 1/18/2018 7:54 AM, Trapp, Darren wrote:
>      > 	If you're concerned about driver unload or reset paths - where the
>      >         target is present up to that point, I guess it could be better behaved.
>      >      	I don't know that it's mandatory as initiator and target have to manage
>      >      	the surprise removal cases.
>      >
>      > Looking at your proposed text for in T11-2017-00419-v001.pdf it will be mandatory:
>      >
>      > An initiator NVMe_Port shall perform the following steps to terminate an NVMeoFC association:
>      >         1) transmit an ABTS-LS (see 11.3) for all open Exchanges for the NVMeoFC association being
>      >         terminated, except for a Disconnect NVMe_LS Exchange.
>      >         2) transmit a Disconnect NVMe_LS request to the corresponding target NVMe_Port unless there
>      >         is no valid login with the associated NVMe_Port. The Disconnect NVMe_LS request, if
>      >         transmitted, shall contain an Association Identifier descriptor with the Association Identifier of
>      >         the NVMeoFC association being terminated.
>      
>      True - but: does deregister mean the target is not there thus the login
>      is gone ?   Even with unload, you will be logging out - at what point
>      did the logout occur ?
>      
>      I'll look into whether we can do something to be a bit more graceful for
>      the controlled shutdown flows where login can be delayed.
>      
>      -- james
>      
>      
>      
>