On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 22:51 +0400, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote: > James Bottomley, on 08/19/2010 12:43 AM wrote: > >>>> 1. What don't you like in the transition path for users from STGT to > >>>> SCST, which I proposed: > >>>> > >>>> - The only people which would be affected by replacing of STGT by SCST > >>>> would be users of ibmvstgt. Other STGT users would not notice it at all. > >>>> Thus, we should update ibmvstgt for SCST. If ibmvstgt updated for SCST, > >>>> the update for its users would be just writing of a simple scstadmin's > >>>> config file. > >>>> > >>>> - STGT doesn't have backend drivers, which SCST doesn't have, so > >>>> there's nothing to worry here. At max, AIO support should be added to > >>>> fileio_tgt. > >>>> > >>>> - STGT user space targets can use SCST backend via scst_local module. > >>>> Scst_local module is ready and work very well. > >>>> > >>>> The result would be very clear without any obsolete mess. > >>> > >>> So does that get us up to being a drop in replacement? I think you're > >>> saying that even with all of this, at least the VSCSI part will need > >>> updating, so the answer seems to be "no". > >> > >> Sorry, I can't understand, "no" for which? For the whole transition > >> path, or just until there is a patch for ibmvstgt to become ibmvscst? > > > > No to the question "does that get us up to being a drop in replacement > > [for STGT]?" > > I'm sorry again, I did my best, but still can't understand. What you > wrote looks for me too ambiguous. My English must be too bad.. > > Could elaborate more for what the "no" is, please? What don't you like > in the plan I suggested? No it isn't a plan that gives us a drop in replacement for STGT. I didn't say migration path to random userspace target, I said reuse of existing code. James -- 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
