Andreas Herrmann wrote:
I think physical_port_name was not the right choice. Sticking to standards the name should be permanent_port_name. So people familiar with FC standards have an idea what it is and all others are able to find an explanation in FC-GS-4. But introducing a permanent_port_id will lead to confusion: Interpretation as "permanent port_id" is wrong because a port_id is anything but "permanent".
Agreed. In truth, even the permanent_port_name, relative to the virtual port, is also anything but permanent.
In conclusion James' suggestion of attributes ppn and ppn_id has some advantage. And now comes the funny part: Question is, do I need the port_id of the physical port at all?
In my opinion - no... > In
order to determine problems with a virtual port I might have to check whether the physical port is properly connected and logged in to the fabric. Furthermore configuration of the corresponding switch port should be checked. (E.g. switch might allow to set limits for the number of NPIV connections for the switch port.) I may be wrong but I think the port_id of the physical port is not needed for this purpose. Thus, how about introducing just what is really needed: Introduce permanent_port_name attribute (and leave out port_id of the physical port).
Works for me. -- james s
BTW, the permanent_port_name attribute of the virtual port suffices to identify the fc_host of the physical port if there is a representation. And I think an LLDD should configure this attribute only for virtual ports. Regards, Andreas
- : 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
