On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 21:13 +0000, Alasdair G Kergon wrote: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 10:06:41PM +0100, christophe varoqui wrote: > > Do still target 2.6.11 for inclusion ? > > I've not been getting as much feedback as I'd hoped for, so I'm not > sure how much of the design is stable enough to submit yet. > I guess you won't get the feedback (and flames) before submission. > For example, one outstanding question is: > > If there is a local path and a remote iscsi path to the > same device, would those paths need different hw_handlers? > What people may want is raid1 across local and iscsi/nbd devices. What you describe seems to be a (iSCSI) developper test case : The userspace should avoid feeding a multipath map to the DM in this case. > In other words, does the hw_handler concept need splitting up? > I don't think so : a LU is either o presented by a single storage controler model : a single hw_handler suffice o directly attached : no hw_handler needed I can't image a valid useful scenario where a LU can be presented through different controler models or through different kernel subsystems. regards, -- christophe varoqui <christophe.varoqui@xxxxxxx>