On 02/03/15 11:06, Dr. Greg Wettstein wrote: > On Jan 19, 1:21am, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 05:13:00PM +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote: >>> My goal is to realize this proposal without adding hooks for out-of-tree >>> code in the upstream kernel. What I had in mind is to raise the >>> abstraction level of the API between LIO core and target drivers a >>> little bit (e.g. by using accessor functions where necessary instead of >>> accessing structure members directly) > >> That's very much a hook, althiugh a week one. >> >> Either way I don't think bringing up a very much political topic >> without even any code to discuss isn't a very valueable use of our time >> slots. > > There is code, no one is bothering to look at it or understand the > issues involved. > > It takes a six line patch to the in-kernel Qlogic target driver for > SCST to leverage and contribute positively to the state of the > in-kernel driver. A six line patch, which if we were engaging in > grounded engineering discussions, implements an interface which we > haven't found anyone who suggests is unfounded. Hi Greg, Thanks for your feedback. Although I certainly value your work, please note that what I proposed goes further than what you have done. If I understood your e-mails correctly what you have done is to unify the API between the QLogic initiator and target drivers for SCST and LIO. My proposal comprises not only a unification of the initiator drivers but also of the target drivers. Last week I finally found the time to start working on an sample implementation of such a unified driver. I hope that I will be able to make that code available for review somewhere next week. Bart. -- 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
