Hi Or & Co, On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 14:45 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote: > On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Varun Prakash <varun@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> cxgbit.h - This file contains data structure > >> definitions for cxgbit.ko. > >> > >> cxgbit_lro.h - This file contains data structure > >> definitions for LRO support. > >> > >> cxgbit_main.c - This file contains code for > >> registering with iscsi target transport and > >> cxgb4 driver. > >> > >> cxgbit_cm.c - This file contains code for > >> connection management. > >> > >> cxgbit_target.c - This file contains code > >> for processing iSCSI PDU. > >> > >> cxgbit_ddp.c - This file contains code for > >> Direct Data Placement. > > > > Wait, > > > > You are adding many K's LOCs to handle things like CM (connection > > management), DDP and LRO. But your upstream solution must be using CM > > and DDP (and LRO as well) for the HW offloaded initiator side as well, > > not to mention the iWARP side of things. > > > > There must be some way to refactor things instead of repeating the > > same bits over and over, thoughts? > > Nic, > > The author haven't responded... where that this stands from your point of view? > For an initial merge, I don't have an objection to this series wrt drivers/target/iscsi/* improvements + prerequisites, and new standalone cxgbit iscsit_transport driver. That said, there are areas between cxgbi + cxgbit code that can be made common as you've pointed out. The Cheliso folks have mentioned off-list that cxgbi as-is in mainline does not support LRO, and that the majority of DDP logic is shared between initiator + target. Are there specific pieces of logic in DDP or iWARP for cxgb* that you'd like to see Varun + Co pursue as common code in v4.8+..? -- 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
