Re: [RFC-v2 0/4] tcm_vhost+cmwq fabric driver code for-3.6

2012-07-17 Thread Anthony Liguori
e to make it depend on CONFIG_STAGING. Then we don't commit to an ABI. I think this is a good idea. Even if it goes in, a really clear policy would be needed wrt the userspace ABI. While tcm_vhost is probably more useful than vhost_blk, it's a much more complex ABI to maintain. Re

Re: [RFC-v2 0/4] tcm_vhost+cmwq fabric driver code for-3.6

2012-07-18 Thread Anthony Liguori
On 07/17/2012 04:50 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 13:55 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: On 07/17/2012 10:05 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 09:15:00PM +, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: It still seems not 100% clear whether this driver will

Re: [RFC-v2 0/4] tcm_vhost+cmwq fabric driver code for-3.6

2012-07-18 Thread Anthony Liguori
On 07/18/2012 10:53 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 08:42:21AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: If you add support for a new command, you need to provide userspace a way to disable this command. If you change what gets reported for VPD, you need to provide userspace a way to

Re: [RFC-v2 0/4] tcm_vhost+cmwq fabric driver code for-3.6

2012-07-18 Thread Anthony Liguori
On 07/18/2012 11:47 AM, James Bottomley wrote: On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 11:00 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: Of course: Think about the consequences: you want to upgrade one array on your SAN. You definitely don't want to shut down your entire data centre to achieve it. In place upgrad