Love, Robert W, on 03/20/2009 07:54 PM wrote: >> The first thing I would like to ask about is the status of the FCoE >> target and how dependent on the SCST project it is. >> > The status is that it's mostly rotting and may not be functional as-is. > It's based on our old initiator code as well as SCST, neither of which > are in-kernel. > > Sivaram, Joe and Mike have been discussing some patches recently to > update the target to get it working again. > > IMO if we want an FCoE target we need to decide on which framework to > use. Either SCST needs to get in-kernel or we need to base the FCoE > target on stgt. My understanding is that the main difference in the > two projects is that SCST is mostly kernel code where stgt is mostly > user space code (with some kernel components which are allready upstream). > There have been a lot of technical discussions on the subject of > what the target infrastructure should look like on linux-scsi. > > So, depending on which direction is decided upon one would then need > to either hook our upstream initiator into SCST (once it's upstream) > or port our current initiator code to userspace to work with stgt.
During decision making please consider SCST patchset and its description http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/10/245. It argues advantages of SCST over STGT. Basically, there is only one thing left to make SCST upstream ready: changing its userspace interface from procfs to sysfs. This work is actively being done. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Vlad _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
