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
-Original Message-
From: James Smart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 2:19 PM
To: Love, Robert W
Cc: Stefan Richter; Dev, Vasu; FUJITA Tomonori; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Zou, Yi;
Leech, Christopher; linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org; James Smart
Subject: Re: Open-FCoE
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 linux-scsi
Stefan Richter wrote
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
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
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)
Agreed. My FCoE initiator
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)
And FCoE HBA LLDs work
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).
What do
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 feedback to
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
transport
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
_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
libfcoe
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)
fc_transport_class
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 drivers
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
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 name is Robert Love and I'm joined by a team of engineers
including Vasu Dev
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 name is Robert Love and I'm joined by a team of
engineers
including Vasu Dev
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
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
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 committed
21 matches
Mail list logo
