On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:37:42 -0700 "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 06:05 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 16:13:54 -0700 > > "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > From: Nicholas Bellinger <nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > This patch takes tomo-san original commit 94fdb0196151 and changes a handful > > > of important items wrt to the fabric configfs logic. > > > > > > Firstly, this patch introduces struct ibmvscsis_vdev and converts the > > > VIO ibmvscsis_probe() and ibmvscsi_remove() callers to allocate/free > > > struct ibmvscsis_vdev instead of the original usage of struct ibmvscsis_tpg > > > which is intended to be allocated/freed respectively in ibmvscsis_make_tpg() > > > and ibmvscsis_drop_tpg() fabric configfs handlers. > > > > What happens if an initiator sends a crq command before an user > > creates a tpg? Or what happens if an initiator sends a crq command > > after removing a tpg? > > > > Hmmm, good point. So this would require ibmvscsis_queuecommand() to > check internal some ibmvscsi_tpg state to determine availability, and > reject incoming I/O otherwise. The other operation would be to just > move crq queue creation/release for individual ibmvscsi_vdev into > ibmvscsis_make_tpg() and ibmvscsis_drop_tpg(). You don't need to create/release rcq. I think that enable/disable vio interrupts is enough. > I am suspecting the latter would bit slightly cleaner.. Probabably, however, I think that not returning any response to an initiator makes the initiator stall for some time. > > > Secondly, this patch changes the metadata that is used to determine the > > > fabric WWN and TPGT (collectively the TCM VIO SRP endpoint) layout for > > > /sys/kernel/config/target/ibmvscsis/$WWN/tpgt_$TPGT/. This patch will > > > now use struct vio_dev->unit_address for $WWN, and dev_name(vio_dev->dev) > > > for $TPGT. > > > > I don't care much about this but vio_dev->unit_address == > > dev_name(vio_dev->dev), I think. See vio_register_device_node() in > > arch/powerpc/kernel/vio.c. So it's odd a bit. > > > > Hmmmm.. > > > ibmvscsis model doesn't strictly follow the SRP SCSI model; no port, > > wwpn, etc. > > > > Correct, which means we need to find a value to build a WWPN that is > both unique to the individual POWER machine, and is persisent across > reports.. I think that vio_dev->unit_address can be used to identify a nexus uniquely. It's not WWPN though. It's a connection between an initiator lpar and a target lpar. > brking and Co, does the struct vio_dev->unit_address meet these two > criteria for a TCM WWPN..? If not, is there anything else we could use > (say the system_id + guest specific ID) to emulate this..? -- 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
