From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Reinecke Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] tcm_loop updates Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 08:29:26 +0200 Message-ID: <559B71C6.3030409@suse.de> 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> <1436250407.23883.25.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1436250407.23883.25.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com> Sender: target-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" 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 07/07/2015 08:26 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > 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: >=20 > >=20 >>>>> 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_loo= p 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 othe= r >>>> 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. >> >=20 > Just to confirm, applying patch #3-#6, and #8 to for-next now. >=20 > Skipping #7 for the moment, given host side expectations short of bei= ng > configurable as noted by HCH. >=20 Precisely. Thank you. Cheers, Hannes --=20 Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=C3=BCrnberg GF: F. Imend=C3=B6rffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton HRB 21284 (AG N=C3=BCrnberg)