Love, Robert W wrote: > Daniel Debonzi wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I am starting to get in touch with the Open FCoE project (and also the >> Fibre Channel thing itself) and as far as one of my tasks is work with >> the Open FCoE target I started to gather information regarding that. >> >> I had an initial conversation with Robert but we didn't entered to >> much in details about the target so as he mentioned a good place to >> figure things out is here. >> >> >> First of all, I apologize in advance if I write something really >> stupid or non-sense because as I wrote before, I am just starting. >> >> 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. I know that there is already a FCoE target implementation using SCST but as long as it probably needs a re-factory and also SCST didn't get into kernel I fell that have it using tgt would be a good idea. Reasons: - Would allow a fully user space implementation (I am supposing that the actual implementation have some kernel bits). - The kernel parts of tgt are already on the mainline kernel which I believe would make any FCoE contribution to tgt get to the mainline kernel easier. I am not considering performance on that because I don't have this info. If someone doesn't agree or think it doesn't make sense, let me know. It will be good for my learning. >> I read in some places that FCoE target is/is been implemented to work >> with tgt too. Does anybody has something to tell me about that? >> >> Keeping on this direction I would like to mention/discuss the >> following part of tgt README: >> >> """ >> Tgt consists of kernel modules, user-space daemon, and user-space >> tools. iSCSI, iSER, and FCoE target drivers use only user-space daemon >> and tools (i.e. they are just user-space applications. They don't need >> any kernel support). >> """ >> >> Again, is it implemented (FCoE using tgt) and is it really purely user >> space? >> > The tgt maintainer ported our target code to stgt about a year ago. It > was old code though. I don't think that much testing was ever done on it > and I'm not sure if any effort has been made to update the code. > I don't know or even saw this code but wouldn't it be a good start? -- Daniel Debonzi _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
