On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 12:28:45PM -0500, James Smart wrote: > > >Problem is that on the mainframe I don't have access to the primary > >port. Virtualization is done in adapter microcode. I just have > >access to the virtual port. > > I was afraid you'd say this... that was the other caveat. > > OK - given that the primary port doesn't exist what you have makes > a lot of sense. I guess we have the 2 options: > - add the 2 attributes per host > - create a host and set the attributes (and this is major overkill) > > I have some reservations about the data passing that allows the virtual > port to get the physical port data, but it's probably manageable. > > With this direction - your patch is fine, with the caveat that I want > to explore the most meaningful names for the attributes. Does port_name > and physical_port_name become odd to a user ? Is some script writer bound > to assume they always wanted the physical name as they would only see a > difference if on a mainframe ? What if we change the names to be more > npiv-centric. What about ppn (for physical_port_name) and ppn_id (for > physical_port_id) ? Actually I think even for Xen-like virtualization it makes most sense that most domains wouldn't see the Scsi_Host for the phyisical port so this solution looks most sane to me. The long name for the physical names sounds fine to me aswell, much better than un-understandable three-latter acronyms :) - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
