On Fri, 2011-07-22 at 20:45 -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
> On 07/22/2011 05:37 PM, James Smart wrote
> > priority. This patch also introduces a new sysfs parameter
> > (fcf_failover_policy) to allow the user to choose which FCF failover policy
> > to use.
>
> I thought something like that was going to go in the sysfs tree Rob was
> working on?
I have a series that adds a "FC Port" and a "FC Fabric" to the FC
Transport.
I haven't looked at this patch, but with my FC Transport additions I
currently have the FCF selection happening in the LLD (libfcoe for SW
FCoE). I was having a lot of problems using a list of FCFs protected
shost_lock in libfcoe receive contexts which is one reason why I kept
the selection logic in the LLD. It may be doable, but it was troublesome
enough that I decided to revisit moving FCF selection policies into the
FC transport layer after the initial implementation.
I'll send out an RFC so you guys can see where I'm at.
Since I haven't looked at this patch closely, so I'm not sure how much
overlap there is.
//Rob
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{������ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
