On Fri, 2015-06-19 at 09:13 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 06/19/2015 08:48 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > What's the benefit of the SAS transport class writeout? I honestly > > always saw tcm_loop as a simple loopback driver, with the different > > transport IDs in the PR code as a gimmick. Note that vhost and > > xen-blkback copies that style and I did plan to consolidate it > > in common code. > > > The benefit is that tcm_loop will show up in the system as a 'real' > SAS hba; long-term goal is to simulate SAS multipathing here. > I was even planning on adding simlated FC infrastructure, too; > with that we could simulate FC multipathing, too, and our QA would > be _so_ happy... >
Sounds like a reasonable use-case to support for loopback testing. > Again, these patches are mainly a collection of patches I've done to > test various scenarios, in the hope others might find them useful, > too. So I can easily hold off these patches until you've posted your > rework. > How different do you expect sas, fc, and iscsi transports to be..? Do you think this would this be better served by a simple tcm_loop LLD specific API for different multipath transports..? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
