I think we need James's comments on this one. I am not sure what is right. On 05/11/2010 02:55 AM, Vikas Chaudhary wrote:
This BSG interface is on top of patch : http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=126884917217355&w=2
All I want to be able to do is allow any app to be able to config any iscsi cards. I want to support Qlogic apps, but then I also want to support iscsiadm, virt tools, installers, boot tools, etc.
+ case ISCSI_BSG_HST_VENDOR: + rval = qla4xxx_process_vendor_specific(job); + break;
I like the idea of allowing you to use the ISCSI_BSG_HST_VENDOR for all your commands, because it makes the kernel code so very very simple. If you guys can provide a userspace gpl friendly lib or plugin to a lib like IMA that allows distros tools to manage your card, then I am happy with this approach.
My concern with this is that, it takes you guys so long to get things out. We have no idea when or if it will ever be done.
+ case ISCSI_BSG_HST_NET_CONFIG: + printk(KERN_ERR "ISCSI_BSG_HST_NET_CONFIG Commands " + "NOT Supported\n"); + rval = -ENOSYS; + break;
OTOH, I like the idea of ethtool like interface where for common operations there is a command command. Then the driver takes that info/cmd and does its vendor specifics.
James, someone mentioned that in the past you might have said it is ok to pass blobs around if it gets passed down directly to hardware. This is the case for qla4xxx here. Is it ok to let them just use the HST_VENDOR command?
-- 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
