Brian J. Murrell wrote: > On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 16:50 +0300, Erez Zilber wrote: > >> I'm not sure if there's a real demand for this transport for OFED users, >> is there? >> > > Maybe I'm not seeing the bigger picture but it seems pretty orthogonal > to me. Does using OFED 1.3 preclude using a qla4xxx host adapter? IOW, > is there anything inherent in using OFED 1.3 as the networking fabric on > a (say) storage server that uses a QLogic ISP4XXX adapter to access it's > storage? >
In theory, I don't think that we cannot add qla4xxx to open-iscsi in OFED 1.3. The only problem is that someone actually has to do that. BTW - you can't use open-iscsi from OFED 1.3 with qla4xxx from the distro kernel because they may not work together. > >> Adding qla4xxx will require backport patches for all supported >> distros, and we don't have the HW to test it. >> > > Yeah, the old conundrum. > > >> Therefore, unless it's >> really important for enough OFED users, I don't think that we should add it. >> > > Well, given the alternative that it's completely unbuildable in the > kernel when you choose OFED's iscsi options, is including the qla4xxx in > the OFED distribution, even untested so bad? > I don't mind, but I'm not sure if Voltaire will do that. We need to make a decision on that. > >> BTW - I don't mind if other people add the required code to OFED 1.4 for >> qla4xxx support. >> > > ~sigh~ Yeah. > > I wonder how many (if any) of our userbase we are going to upset if we > cease providing the qla4xxx driver in our kernels. On the other hand, I > wonder how many we'd upset by not providing iSER and the newer > open-iscsi modules. > > Yeah, I understand. Let me get back to you on this issue. Erez _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
