On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 23:48 +0400, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> James Bottomley, on 08/24/2010 06:57 PM wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 18:41 +0400, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> >> James Bottomley, on 08/22/2010 12:43 AM wrote:
> >>> Interface re-use (or at least ABI compatibility) is the whole point,
> >>> it's what makes the solution a drop in replacement.
> >>
> >> I see now. You want ABI compatibility to keep the "contract" that no
> >> kernel changes can break applications binary compatibility for unlimited
> >> time.
> >>
> >> OK, we will write the compatibility module. It shouldn't take much time.
> >>
> >> But before we start, I'd like to clear 2 related questions:
> >>
> >> 1. How far the ABI compatibility "contract" goes? Are there cases, where
> >> it isn't so strong? I'm asking, because I can recall that open-iscsi at
> >> least once has broken ABI compatibility with user space tools. Was it an
> >> accidental (but not corrected) mistake or was it deliberate? If the
> >> latter, then, I guess, there must be some exceptions defining when ABI
> >> compatibility can be not followed.
> >
> > I don't think it has to be complete. As long as the STGT people think
> > it's good enough, that's fine by me.
>
> Tomonori, Mike, could you comment on that, please?
>
> >> 2. Currently STGT in the kernel is just 2 files, scsi_tgt_if.c and
> >> scsi_tgt_lib.c (with headers), + ibmvstgt driver. The C files define the
> >> STGT interface in question. So, if we keep ABI compatibility with the
> >> new target engine, we would have to keep those 2 files included in the
> >> kernel,
> >
> > This isn't really correct. The ABI is defined by the headers not the
> > implementation.
>
> Yes, but we on the target side would not be able to implement the ABI compatible interface without using library functions provided by those C files. Or, at least, it would be much harder.
>
> So, would it be OK for you to keep those files?
>
> >> which would effectively mean that STGT would stay in the kernel.
> >> This would lead to the situation you are trying to avoid: 2 SCSI target
> >> infrastructures in the kernel. Would it be OK?
> >
> > If you mean is the marketing solution of wedging two products into the
> > kernel and calling it a single one going to fly, the answer is no.
>
> I mean that if we keep those 2 files to ease our ABI compatibility effort, it would effectively mean that we would leave STGT merged. It isn't something we would create, it just would be so itself as a matter of fact. Ultimately, STGT is an user space engine. What it has in the kernel is the interface helper functions to interact with the in-kernel drivers. The simplest way to achieve the ABI compatibility is to make a backend module acting as an STGT in-target driver.
>
> (Actually, I may not ask it, because this is the way how LIO seems[1] implemented that, which was approved on the LSF summit. I only want to make all pros and cons clear from the very beginning.)
>
> Thanks,
> Vlad
>
> 1. I wrote "seems", because currently LIO has the following code for STGT commands execution:
>
> int stgt_do_task(se_task_t *task)
> {
> stgt_plugin_task_t *st = (stgt_plugin_task_t *) task->transport_req;
> struct Scsi_Host *sh = task->se_dev->se_hba->hba_ptr;
> struct scsi_cmnd *sc;
> int tag = MSG_SIMPLE_TAG;
>
> sc = scsi_host_get_command(sh, st->stgt_direction, GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!sc) {
> printk(KERN_ERR "Unable to allocate memory for struct"
> " scsi_cmnd\n");
> return PYX_TRANSPORT_LU_COMM_FAILURE;
> }
>
> memcpy(sc->cmnd, st->stgt_cdb, MAX_COMMAND_SIZE);
> sc->sdb.length = task->task_size;
> sc->sdb.table.sgl = task->task_sg;
> sc->tag = tag;
>
> BUG();
> #warning FIXME: Get struct scsi_lun for scsi_tgt_queue_command()
> #if 0
> err = scsi_tgt_queue_command(sc, itn_id, (struct scsi_lun *)&cmd->lun,
> cmd->tag);
> if (err) {
> printk(KERN_INFO "scsi_tgt_queue_command() failed for sc:"
> " %p\n", sc);
> scsi_host_put_command(sh, sc);
> }
> #endif
> return PYX_TRANSPORT_SENT_TO_TRANSPORT;
> }
Vlad,
As mentioned explictly earlier in this thread, my WIP code for the
kernel level subsystem backstore using STGT kernel <-> user CDB
passthrough logic in drivers/target/target_core_stgt.c is a item on my
TODO list, but I will repeat, is NOT being tagged as a mainline .37
item.
Tomo-san, mnc, and other storage folks have been briefed on the
remaining issues that would be involved to get a prototype functioning
with drivers/target/target_core_stgt.c, and rough idea of what it would
take in existing mainline drivers/scsi/scsi_tgt_*.c code. With the
current WIP code this will allow the userspace CDB -> LUN passthrough to
function transparently with all TCM SPC-4 compliant logic as a
standalone struct se_subsystem_api tcm_core_stgt.ko backstore.
Best,
--nab
--
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
