From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] tcm_loop updates Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 23:26:47 -0700 Message-ID: <1436250407.23883.25.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com> References: <1434620622-65391-1-git-send-email-hare@suse.de> <20150619064855.GB1183@lst.de> <5583C117.4030103@suse.de> <1435048143.7460.50.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com> <55892164.6020907@suse.de> <1436228703.5138.2.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com> <559B6893.5030604@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <559B6893.5030604@suse.de> Sender: target-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Hannes Reinecke Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Nic Bellinger , target-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Ewan Milne List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 07:50 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 07/07/2015 02:25 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-06-23 at 11:05 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > >> On 06/23/2015 10:29 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > >>> How different do you expect sas, fc, and iscsi transports to be..? > >>> > >>> Do you think this would this be better served by a simple tcm_loop LLD > >>> specific API for different multipath transports..? > >>> > >> Actually, I would split off the various transport functions into > >> separate files (tcm_loop_sas, tcm_loop_fc, etc), but keep a common > >> tcm_loop module. > >> We can even make transport classes optional by adding an explicit > >> 'sas.XXX' prefix scanning when creating the device similar to what > >> we do with the 'fc.XXX' prefix already. > >> With that we would have a 'sas.XXX', 'fc.XXX', and 'iqn.XXX' WWN > >> which would attach to the respective transport class, and any other > >> WWN (which would be the default) would be getting the standard > >> emulation without any transport class attached. > > > > I'm open to merging the tcm_loop patches #1-#6 as-is for the sas > > transport pieces, or wait until you've done a large split based on > > transport class types. > > > > It's really your call how the initial merge should look. > > > Probably leave out the transport class stuff for now; I kinda like > the idea of having all types of transport classes available for > tcm_loop. > But this is actually not related to the rest of the patchset, so > you can skip those for the time being. > Just to confirm, applying patch #3-#6, and #8 to for-next now. Skipping #7 for the moment, given host side expectations short of being configurable as noted by HCH.