On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 09:48 -0700, Mike Christie wrote:
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * bnx2i_nl_mesg_recv -
> > + * @buf: pointer to buffer containing vendor specific message
> > + * @buf: buffer length
> > + *
> > + */
> > +static int bnx2i_nl_mesg_recv(struct Scsi_Host *shost, uint16_t priv_op,
> > + int status, char *buf, int buflen)
> > +{
> > + struct bnx2i_hba *hba = iscsi_host_priv(shost);
> > +
> > + switch (priv_op) {
> > + case NX2_UIO_UEVENT_NEIGH_LOOKUP:
> > + default:
> > + /* handle by cnic driver */
> > + hba->cnic->nl_priv_msg_recv(hba->cnic, priv_op, buf, buflen);
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return buflen;
> > +}
>
> I think I was wrong with one of the comments I gave you.
>
> It seems like we have two iscsi net config models.
>
> 1. qla4xxx and Server Engines type of setup where the driver just tells
> the card to use some ip or do dhcp and some other net settings and it
> does all the net magic. The iscsi driver does not have to worry about
> anything like the dhcp process or arp. It only passes down the setup values.
>
> 2. cxgb3i and bnx2i type of model where kernel or userspace code is
> needed to execute many net operations.
> - Right now, cxgb3i sort of cheated :) and only supports static IPs. It
> currently uses the iscsi set param interface to do this.
>
> - bnx2i wants to add more complicated features and is going to do them
> in userspace. It us using the private messages that were added in the
> previous patch.
>
>
> I think cxgb3i is one day going to want to support the same features
> bnx2i does. If that is right, then should we just make the NX2_UIO
> events common iscsi events, and hook cxb3i in? It would not use the
> iscsi set param interface at all and would work just like bnx2i. Is that
> possible? What about future drivers? Are done making iscsi cards and
> drivers. If so, thank goodness :) If not then maybe we want to consider
> some future driver using the #2 module and possibly using this.
>
> If cxgb3i is really only going to support static ip setup and we think
> that bnx2i is going to be unique on how it sets up the network then I
> NX2_UIO private events are fine. Or is this a case of we are thinking
> that iscsi hardware people are creating crazy interfaces so there is no
> why to predict what they are going to do so there is no point in trying
> to design for them.
If there is any possibility that cxgb3i will use something similar to
bnx2i, I think we can change the message to a standard one and make the
message structure somewhat more generic. We'll probably still need a
private area in the message for hardware or vendor specific information.
--
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
