>I was thinking more about this and I don't think that these options will >be exclusive to libfc/libfcoe/fcoe and so they should probably be under >the fc_host/fcoe_host/whateveritbecomes since other HBA/CNAs might need >them; I'm pretty sure you already mentioned this in your initial mail. > >If that becomes the case then I'm not aware of any netlink interfaces >exposed by the FC transport, so it might not be appropriate. AFAIK under >the FC transport the only user/kernel interface (excluding passthrough >which builds on BSG) is to use individual files for each knob.
Well there's the SCSI Transport netlink type, which has hooks for transport level and driver level messaging. Right now it only gets used to post FC events back to userspace through fc_host_post_event() and fc_host_port_vendor_event(). The receive hooks don't seem to be used at all in the kernel. And iSCSI has its own netlink type that was defined before the SCSI transport one. I'm not sure what the right interface is going to be, just pointing out that there's already some netlink infrastructure in place. - Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
