On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 07:50 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 07/07/2015 02:25 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-06-23 at 11:05 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > >> On 06/23/2015 10:29 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: <SNIP> > >>> How different do you expect sas, fc, and iscsi transports to be..? > >>> > >>> Do you think this would this be better served by a simple tcm_loop LLD > >>> specific API for different multipath transports..? > >>> > >> Actually, I would split off the various transport functions into > >> separate files (tcm_loop_sas, tcm_loop_fc, etc), but keep a common > >> tcm_loop module. > >> We can even make transport classes optional by adding an explicit > >> 'sas.XXX' prefix scanning when creating the device similar to what > >> we do with the 'fc.XXX' prefix already. > >> With that we would have a 'sas.XXX', 'fc.XXX', and 'iqn.XXX' WWN > >> which would attach to the respective transport class, and any other > >> WWN (which would be the default) would be getting the standard > >> emulation without any transport class attached. > > > > I'm open to merging the tcm_loop patches #1-#6 as-is for the sas > > transport pieces, or wait until you've done a large split based on > > transport class types. > > > > It's really your call how the initial merge should look. > > > Probably leave out the transport class stuff for now; I kinda like > the idea of having all types of transport classes available for > tcm_loop. > But this is actually not related to the rest of the patchset, so > you can skip those for the time being. > Just to confirm, applying patch #3-#6, and #8 to for-next now. Skipping #7 for the moment, given host side expectations short of being configurable as noted by HCH. -- 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
