On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 09:10:26PM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: > > Or so the theory goes. Unfortunately, you need all that information > > before you can create the connection. The configfs guys have thought > > about that, but not implemented yet: > > > > > [Committable Items] > > > NOTE: Committable items are currently unimplemented. > > The netconsole code in-tree has a separate "enabled" attribute that > serves the purpose of "committing" something. Seems good enough for SRP > to use to me... the rename to commit idea seems cute but I don't see > that it buys much beyond this.
But... But... I've got nothing. I mentioned the enable attribute as a possible way to do it, though it is counter to the configfs's documented preference. But it's there, it works perfectly well, and the configfs guys have had over 2 years to implement their alternate commit feature. That said, given that SRP's been using sysfs since it went in, is there a reason to move to configfs other than it's the new preferred way to do it? Given the desire to not break ABI's -- and IIRC sysfs was declared to be under that unbrella -- wouldn't we have to at least carry both interfaces for a while, assuming we can even get rid of the sysfs one? Carrying both adds a bit of a interesting twist -- targets added using the sysfs add-target wouldn't show up under configfs. It may not be a real problem, but it could be a bit of a surprise to an admin. I'm not opposed to configfs, but the more I think about it, it doesn't seem to bring much to the table for the SRP initiator other more code and data structure size. -- Dave Dillow National Center for Computational Science Oak Ridge National Laboratory (865) 241-6602 office _______________________________________________ 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
