Good to know it. I will read for sure. I am accepting I information I can get.
Thanks Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote: > 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
