Dave C Boutcher wrote: > Jeff Garzik wrote: >> Arjan van de Ven wrote: >>> On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 08:37 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: >>>> Jeff Garzik wrote: >>>>> In fact, SCSI should make a few things easier, because the notion of >>>>> host+bus topology is already present, and notion of messaging is already >>>>> present, so you don't have to recreate that in a Xen block device >>>>> infrastructure. >>>> Another benefit of SCSI: when an IBM hypervisor in the Linux kernel >>>> switched to SCSI, that allowed them to replace several drivers (virt >>>> disk, virt cdrom, virt floppy?) with a single virt-SCSI driver. >>> but there's a generic one for that: iSCSI >>> so in theory you only need to provide a network driver then ;) >> Talk about lots of overhead :) >> >> OTOH, I bet that T10 is acting at high speed, right this second, to form >> a committee, and multiple sub-committees, to standardize SCSI >> transported over XenBus. SXP anyone? :) > > Actually SRP (which T10 has now stopped working on) fits the bill very > nicely. > Does the IBM vscsi code/SPEC follow the SRP SPEC or is it slightly modified? We also have a SRP initiator in kernel now too. It is just not in the drivers/scsi dir.
