On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 08:47 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > On Thu, 26 May 2011 16:28:10 -0700 > "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > As we have discussed at length over the years, the split needs to be all > > userspace or all kernelspace, and when implementations start doing > > things in-between they quickly get painful to debug, maintain and > > extend. I have no interest in trying to evolve this further when LIO > > Sorry, I disagree. As I explained, once user space passes established nexuses > to kernel, kernel handles all. I don't think it's painful. > > Then we are going to have to agree to disgree on this for an individual target endpoint context and being able to manage (via configfs) a complete set of iscsi-target features with native python library code. As for moving the mainline iscsi-target efforts to a more complex default direction is something that we (speaking as LIO maintainer and on behalf of RisingTide userspace) do not have an interest for an initial merge. We owe our users a complete set of functional and stable kernel and userspace library+shell, and not an untested design with undetermined time-frame for deployment. > > from the default two cases provided in their series, but lets please, > > please avoid slipping yet another window here when we still have >= 15K > > LOC in three other HW target mode fabric drivers in flight for the next > > round > > Why can't you push other fabric drivers before iSCSI one? Well, ibmvscsis look pretty reasonable at this point wrt to I/O path, but that is up to Mr. King, yourself and James, which by the way we still need to get a proper /var/target/fabric/ibmvscsis.spec feature set defined. The default example spec and README are included here btw: http://www.risingtidesystems.com/git/?p=rtslib.git;a=tree;f=specs;hb=HEAD --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
