On 04/12/2017 07:01 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: Hi Sir Christoph > The only real user of the T10 OSD protocol, the pNFS object layout > driver never went to the point of having shipping products, and the > other two users (osdblk and exofs) were simple example of it's usage. > I understand why osdblk might be a pain, and was broken from day one, and should by all means go away ASAP. But exofs should not be bothering anyone, and as far as I know does not use any special API's except the osd_uld code of course. > The code has been mostly unmaintained for years and is getting in the > way of block / SCSI changes, so I think it's finally time to drop it. > Please tell me what are those changes you are talking about? I might be able to help in conversion. I guess you mean osd_uld and the Upper SCSI API. Just point me at a tree where osd_uld is broken, and perhaps with a little guidance from you I can do a satisfactory conversion. Is true that no new code went in for a long while, but I still from time to time run a setup and test that the all stack, like iscsi-bidi and so on still works. That said, yes only a stand alone exofs was tested for a long time, a full pnfs setup is missing any supporting server. So Yes I admit that pnfs-obj is getting very rotten. And is most probably broken, on the pnfs side of things. [Which I admit makes my little plea kind of mute ;-) ] Every once in a while I get emails from Students basing all kind of interesting experiments on top of the exofs and object base storage. So for the sake of academics and for the sake of a true bidi-stack testing, might we want to evaluate what is the up coming cost, and what is a minimum set we are willing to keep? Please advise? thanks Boaz > These patches are against Jens' block for-next tree as that already > has various modifications of the SCSI code. >
