On 16/06/2015 13:45, Peter Lieven wrote: > libiscsi starting with 1.15 will properly support timeout of iscsi > commands. The default will remain no timeout, but this can > be changed via cmdline parameters, e.g.: > > qemu -iscsi timeout=30 -drive file=iscsi://... > > If a timeout occurs a reconnect is scheduled and the timed out command > will be requeued for processing after a successful reconnect. > > The required API call iscsi_set_timeout is present since libiscsi > 1.10 which was released in October 2013. However, due to some bugs > in the libiscsi code the use is not recommended before version 1.15.
If so, QEMU should not allow it if libiscsi is older than 1.15. > Please note that this patch bumps the libiscsi requirement to 1.10 > to have all function and macros defined. This is not acceptable, unfortunately. I explained this two months ago (https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-04/msg01847.html) and it is still true. libiscsi keeps breaking ABI compatibility and for a while did not even bump the soname when they do. This makes it completely impossible for distros to upgrade to a newer libiscsi, and RHEL7 is thus stuck with 1.9. Yes, it is 2 years old. It doesn't matter. If libiscsi upstream only _tried_ to preserve ABI compatibility, they wouldn't be in this situation. And I know that it is not even trying, because it broke again sometime between 1.11 and 1.14 for a totally trivial reason: --- a/iscsi/iscsi.h +++ b/iscsi/iscsi.h @@ -91,6 +136,8 @@ struct iscsi_url { char target[MAX_STRING_SIZE + 1]; char user[MAX_STRING_SIZE + 1]; char passwd[MAX_STRING_SIZE + 1]; + char target_user[MAX_STRING_SIZE + 1]; + char target_passwd[MAX_STRING_SIZE + 1]; int lun; struct iscsi_context *iscsi; }; This is the only change between these releases that breaks the ABI, but it is already one too much. :( (Also, the parsing of URLs into iscsi_url doesn't even try to obey the RFCs...). > The patch fixes also a > off-by-one error in the NOP timeout calculation which was fixed > while touching these code parts. Can you please separate this part anyway? Paolo
