On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, James Smart wrote: > Nope - not forgotten, just a lot of different things to get to. > > I don't know of anything in the header that needs to be specified. > Everything is either fixed because it is an ELS/CT request, or what needs > to be specified (usually S_ID/D_ID) comes from the object the bsg reference > is to. CS_CTL is the only one that is a maybe - but that's a whole > different story, and we should just ignore it for now. So I'm against a > header. > > Additionally, we have to be careful about what kind of interface we believe > the LLD's support. If they expected a raw frame transmit, I don't know how > many support that, especially as adapters very much control XID's, etc. > Create Exchange, w/ Send/Receive, sequence is prefered, but even that might > be too low. At best, there is explicit els or ct assist interfaces - which > means the LLD/adapter is likely handling all the header and segmentation, > and the interface is just passing payload buffers. That's essentially what prompted this inquiry. Sure, for hardware CNA/HBA solutions, access to something like a raw-frame header seems unnecessary. What about software FCoE? Would the openfcoe want this export/expose these raw-frame data? > So in general it's a request, w/ xmt payload, buffer for response, and a > completion status (which I would assume is more than just an int and a > couple of #defines - we have to cover the F_RJT/P_RJT/ABORT cases..) -- av -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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
