On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 09:38 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: > > 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? > > Yes, we'd definitely be carrying both interfaces for at least a year. > > Looking further into this, I'm not sure it makes much sense either. > Another problem with configfs is that the lifetime of the object is > controlled by userspace. So if we lose a connection to a target, > the object will persist in configfs until userspace notices.
Yep. Though I'd like to be able to have a persistent connection and retry capability in the kernel, so that I don't need to have srp_daemon, and the persistence would be fine in that case. I've not fully convinced myself that doing a persistent connection in the kernel is a good idea, but a deep background task is trying to do the OFED patches to the initiator in a way that is acceptable for inclusion in mainline, and they would easily fall out of that work. -- 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
