On 05/18/2015 10:54 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:13:32PM -0700, Andy Grover wrote:Even though qla2xxx and qla2xxx_npiv are not represented hierarchically in configfs (they're peers) I'm wondering if that's not actually a mistake, and preferable to present differently in targetcli. It might be clearer to show it hierarchically -- create an "npivs" node: qla2xxx o- 20:00:00:00:00:00:00:55 o- acls o- luns o- npivs in which "npivs/ create 5555666677778888 npiv_wwnn=1111222233334444" would actually jump over to the qla2xxx_npiv configfs dir and set stuff up.Or the qla2xxx_npiv configfs dir should go away in this form and we should just have the npivs subdirectories?
My first impression was that would be more natural. I'm trying to see if there's any reason that the way it is now is preferable. But even if there aren't, I don't know if we can look at a change due to backwards compatibility concerns.
But what configfs looks like is somewhat separate from how npiv should look to the user in targetcli, because we are able to paper over things in rtslib (e.g. adding initiator groups where in configfs there are none)
-- Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
