On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 16:09 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:46:45 -0700 > "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 11:21 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:48:22 -0700 > > > "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > drivers/Kconfig | 2 + > > > > drivers/Makefile | 1 + > > > > drivers/target/Kbuild | 30 + > > > > drivers/target/Kconfig | 36 + > > > > > > Why do we need a new place for the target stuff? This could be used > > > for non scsi protocl? > > > > > > > Yes, I have envisioned the princaple pieces of TCM/ConfigFS design being > > very much SCSI fabric independent from the start of v3.0 development, > > and I think the v4.0 virtual HBA/DEV abstraction now present in > > target_core_configfs.c and fabric module independent control plane in > > target_core_fabric_configfs.c does demonstrate this design feature. > > > > Of course doing 'SCSI-less' target mode this would still involve some > > work to target_core_transport.c to add ATA specific > > emulation/passthrough and disable others for the default SPC-3 emulation > > logic currently in place. However, I do believe the TCM subsystem > > plugin API in target_core_transport.h for pSCSI, iBLOCK, FILEIO, etc is > > already more or less SCSI fabric independent and adding a libata > > subsystem plugin (eg: with it's own set of TCM fabric modules) minus > > current libata-scsi.c glue code would be possible if the libata folks > > would like to entertain that discussion.. > > I like to hear the opinions of SCSI maintainer and ATA folks. jejb, jgarzik, tejun and co..? Any thoughts here..? > > Even if the target feature is SCSI independent, the SCSI drivers > should go to under driver/scsi. As I explained, at least, it's a > cleaner solution for ibmvscsi target driver. > > Fair enough then. Then I will plan to move the upstream lio-core-2.6.git/lio-4.0 branch to live under drivers/scsi/ soon, and rebase the next .37 branch for mainline following this new layout. > > > We had the similar discussion when I put stgt to mainline but we > > > concluded that under drivers/scsi is the best place. > > > > > > I don't like to put ibmvscsi driver under something like > > > drivers/target/tcm_ibmvscsit because ibmvscsi needs to include some > > > files under drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/. It's more reasonable to put the > > > driver there. > > > > > > Can we change the name, TCM (Target Core Mod), to something more > > > informative? I think that "Core Mod" is really pointless. > > > > > > This will be the mainline scsi target feature so why can't we name > > > the files and modules in more appropriate way? > > > > Honestly, I tend not to care very much about naming and things, but that > > said I would really hate to have to rename actual TCM code at this point > > for .37 (other than say directory location/layout and file names) while > > the drivers/target/lio-target -> iscsi_proto.h conversion is still on > > our TODO list. > > I'm not sure this goes for .37 (up to James) but anyway I think that > we need to take care about the module names now. Once we put stuff > into mainline, it's not good to change the module names. Yes, definately not.. > File and directory names and layout can be changed any time. Thanks again for your comments Tomo! --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
