On Mon, 2016-03-07 at 20:25 +0530, Varun Prakash wrote: > On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 01:28:58PM -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-03-01 at 06:48 -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > This really looks like an odd interface. I think everyone will > > > be much happpier in the long run if you do a generic offload interface > > > instead of special casing each possible driver. > > > > Yes, I think iscsit_transport_type should to be replaced with an enum > > defining three types: > > > > - TCP using Linux/NET + stateless hw offload > > - TCP using hw iscsi + network offload > > - RDMA using iser-target offload > > > > iscsit_transport_type was originally introduced to support TCP and SCTP > > network portal (which is still there btw), and since nobody cares about > > SCTP anymore, we can just drop it. > > > > Varun, let's go in this direction for -v2 code, and use this new enum > > for existing special cases that -v1 touches. > > Should we allow registration of multiple same transport type > offload drivers with iscsi-target? Registration of different hw iscsi + network offload drivers using the same transport type should be supported, yes. I don't believe there is a limit wrt to multiple drivers/infiniband/hw/ RNICs using different iscsit_transport registrations today, so it shouldn't be an issue. -- 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
