On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:06:23 -0400 Pete Wyckoff <pw@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > alexandern@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:38 +0300: > > Pete Wyckoff wrote: > > > > > > Why did you duplicate so many shared iscsi functions? > > > iser_scsi_cmd_done etc. should not know about the particulars of the > > > transport. You got rid of the whole transport abstraction? > > > > There are few reasons. First, my initial motivation was to escape > > the api of iscsi sub-transports, because it did not suit well for iser. > > Then, the login and text code was not generic and became unusable > > outside the above-mentioned api. > > So i circumvented iscsi transport abstraction for iser, and duplicated > > some other code, but if we formulate a new transport api > > suitable for both iscsi/tcp and iser then it can be brought back. > > Actually this is one possibility for a new design, and i'd be happy > > to discuss it. > > > > Perhaps you missed my explanations, posted previously on the list: > > http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/stgt/2010-June/003842.html > > Thanks for the pointer. I think I fell off the stgt list. > > All your reasons do make sense to me too. It is a shame that the > code can't be more shared, but I understand why you want to decouple > some of it. At this point, I don't care much about how much the new iser code duplicates the iscsi/tcp code. > I'll try to take a look at your new event processing loop some time. I really appreciate if you could check the new event processing code. I like to see opinions of a third person. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stgt" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
