Chris Leech wrote:
In thinking about how FC should be represented, it seems to me that in
order to provide good interfaces at multiple levels of functionality
we have to make sure the we have the right data structures at each
level. At the highest level there's scsi_cmd, then there's sequence
On Jan 15, 2008 2:18 PM, James Smart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> True - it should become rather evident that FC should be its own
> i/o bus, with the hba LLDD providing bindings to each of the FC4 stacks.
> This would have worked really well for FCOE, with it creating a fc_port
> object, which cou
ubject: Re: Open-FCoE on linux-scsi
>
>Love, Robert W wrote:
>>> The interconnect layer could be split further:
>>> SCSI command set layer -- SCSI core -- SCSI transport layer (FCP) --
>>> Fibre Channel core -- Fibre Channel card drivers, FCoE drivers.
>
Love, Robert W wrote:
The interconnect layer could be split further:
SCSI command set layer -- SCSI core -- SCSI transport layer (FCP) --
Fibre Channel core -- Fibre Channel card drivers, FCoE drivers.
This is how I see the comparison. ('/' indicates 'or')
You suggest
>-Original Message-
>From: Stefan Richter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 4:10 PM
>To: Dev, Vasu
>Cc: FUJITA Tomonori; Love, Robert W; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Zou, Yi; Leech,
>Christopher; linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
>Subject: Re: Open-FCoE on
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
Thus, I believe, that partial user space, partial kernel space approach
for building SCSI targets is the move in the wrong direction, because it
brings practically nothing, but costs a lot.
We have not discussed such topic. FCoE target can be implemented fully
in user sp
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 14:07:28 -0800
"Dev, Vasu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> _If_ there will indeed be dedicated FCoE HBAs in the future, the
> >> following stack could exist in addition to the one above:
> >>
> >> - SCSI core,
> >> scsi_transport_fc
> >> - FCoE HBA driver(s)
> >
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:41:05 +0100
Stefan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dev, Vasu wrote:
> [FUJITA Tomonori wrote:]
> >> Agreed. My FCoE initiator design would be something like:
> >>
> >> scsi-ml
> >> fcoe initiator driver
> >> libfcoe
> >> fc_transport_class (inclusing fcoe support)
> >>
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:33:48 +0300
Vladislav Bolkhovitin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thus, I believe, that partial user space, partial kernel space approach
> for building SCSI targets is the move in the wrong direction, because it
> brings practically nothing, but costs a lot.
We have not dis
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
What's the general opinion on this? Duplicate code vs. more kernel code?
I can see that you're already starting to clean up the code that you
ported. Does that mean the duplicate code isn't an issue to you? When we
fix bugs in the initiator they're not going to make it into
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 01:21:28AM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> PS: There is already an RFC 2625 implementation in Linux, but only for
> LSIFC9xx.
There has also been one for interphace cards which was removed because
the driver was entirely unmaintained. qlogic also has/had an out of
tree driv
Stefan Richter wrote:
> The interconnect layer could be split further:
> SCSI command set layer -- SCSI core -- SCSI transport layer (FCP) --
> Fibre Channel core -- Fibre Channel card drivers, FCoE drivers.
>
> But this would only really make sense if anybody would implement
> additional FC-4 dri
Stefan Richter wrote:
> I.e. you have SCSI command set layer -- SCSI core -- SCSI transport
> layer -- interconnect layer.
The interconnect layer could be split further:
SCSI command set layer -- SCSI core -- SCSI transport layer (FCP) --
Fibre Channel core -- Fibre Channel card drivers, FCoE driv
Dev, Vasu wrote:
[FUJITA Tomonori wrote:]
>> Agreed. My FCoE initiator design would be something like:
>>
>> scsi-ml
>> fcoe initiator driver
>> libfcoe
>> fc_transport_class (inclusing fcoe support)
>>
>> And FCoE HBA LLDs work like:
>>
>> scsi-ml
>> FCoE HBA LLDs (some of them might use libfcoe)
>>
>> _If_ there will indeed be dedicated FCoE HBAs in the future, the
>> following stack could exist in addition to the one above:
>>
>> - SCSI core,
>> scsi_transport_fc
>> - FCoE HBA driver(s)
>
>Agreed. My FCoE initiator design would be something like:
>
>scsi-ml
>fcoe initiator driver
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
Understood, but open-iscsi doesn't have the layering scheme that we do.
Since we're providing a Fibre Channel protocol processing layer that
different transport types can register with I think the generic name is
appropriate. Anyway, I don't think anyone here is terribly st
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 13:58:29 -0800
"Love, Robert W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Talking about stability is a bit premature, I think. The first thing
> >to do is finding a design that can be accepted into mainline.
>
> How can we get this started? We've provided our current solution, but
> need f
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:45:45 +0100
Stefan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/3/2008 10:58 PM, Love, Robert W wrote:
> [FUJITA Tomonori wrote]
> >>I would add one TODO item, better integration with scsi_transport_fc.
> >>If we have HW FCoE HBAs in the future, we need FCoE support in the fc
>
On 1/3/2008 10:58 PM, Love, Robert W wrote:
[FUJITA Tomonori wrote]
>>I would add one TODO item, better integration with scsi_transport_fc.
>>If we have HW FCoE HBAs in the future, we need FCoE support in the fc
>>transport class (you could use its netlink mechanism for event
>>notification).
>
>
>From: "Love, Robert W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Open-FCoE on linux-scsi
>Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:34:38 -0800
>
>> >> Hello SCSI mailing list,
>> >>
>> >> I'd just like to introduce ourselves a bit before we
From: "Love, Robert W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Open-FCoE on linux-scsi
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:34:38 -0800
> >> Hello SCSI mailing list,
> >>
> >>I'd just like to introduce ourselves a bit before we get
> >> started. My
>> Hello SCSI mailing list,
>>
>> I'd just like to introduce ourselves a bit before we get
>> started. My name is Robert Love and I'm joined by a team of engineers
>> including Vasu Dev, Chris Leech and Yi Zou. We are committed to
>> maintaining the Open-FCoE project. Aside from Intel engineer
From: "Love, Robert W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Open-FCoE on linux-scsi
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:40:05 -0800
> Hello SCSI mailing list,
>
> I'd just like to introduce ourselves a bit before we get
> started. My name is Robert Love and I'm joined b
>On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:40:05 -0800
>"Love, Robert W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hello SCSI mailing list,
>>
>> I'd just like to introduce ourselves a bit before we get
>> started. My name is Robert Love and I'm joined by a team of engineers
>> including Vasu Dev, Chris Leech and Yi Zou.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:40:05 -0800
"Love, Robert W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello SCSI mailing list,
>
> I'd just like to introduce ourselves a bit before we get
> started. My name is Robert Love and I'm joined by a team of engineers
> including Vasu Dev, Chris Leech and Yi Zou. We are
Hello SCSI mailing list,
I'd just like to introduce ourselves a bit before we get
started. My name is Robert Love and I'm joined by a team of engineers
including Vasu Dev, Chris Leech and Yi Zou. We are committed to
maintaining the Open-FCoE project. Aside from Intel engineers we expect
en
26 matches
Mail list logo
