On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 11:19 -0800, Joe Eykholt wrote: > As there's been some discussion on the linux-scsi alias > about making FC a "bus" that upper-level drivers can use, > I thought I'd send out what I've been working on, as an > RFC in order to collect comments on the concept. > > It may not be complete in that other hooks may be needed for > a full target implementation, but it is a start. > > The first patch just rearranges code in the PRLI handling. > The second patch is the bulk of the FC-4 hooks. > The last patch adds a place in the lport for FC-4 providers > to hang their private data. > > I should probably rename FC-4 providers to FC-4 drivers or > upper-level drivers. Any suggestions? > > I'm very interested in getting feedback. > ---
Hey Joe... I'll take a better look at this next week, but I wanted you to know what I have. I'm trying to build a fc_sysfs interface to build the device tree as discussed. Right now I have a very crude device tree API and I've been hooking it into libfc. (Stuff like fcport_add(), fcfport_add(), etc...) I've moved the scsi_host_add() to later in the stack and I'm now trying to move the scsi_host_alloc(). This effort is mostly an exercise in breaking libfc's dependency on the fc_host/fc_host_attrs and scsi_host objects. I chose to focus on stack changes first before really flushing out the fc_sysfs APIs since I want to have working code to test as I start moving attributes out of fc_host/fc_host_attrs and into these other devices. I hope to publish something (early RFC) soon. Hopefully, after I move the scsi_host_alloc() I can clean up the patches a bit so that they're readable. //Rob _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
