Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] lpfc: Deprecate lpfc_soft_wwn parameter

On 12/29/2016 3:31 PM, Sebastian Herbszt wrote: "not portable" might not be the term I actually meant. Let's call it server vendor dependent. Can you please elaborate on the oem platforms and side-band management you mean? I know of a solution called "ServerView Virtual-IO Manager" by Fujitsu

Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] lpfc: Deprecate lpfc_soft_wwn parameter

James, thank you for taking the time to answer me. James Smart wrote: > Sebastian, > > "not portable" isn't the right way to describe it. It's not a > chip-architecture issue, but rather that some oem platforms have > side-band management that overrides anything that could have been > done in

Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] lpfc: Deprecate lpfc_soft_wwn parameter

ok.. I'll submit a patch to re-add the parameters, and add an appropriate "deprecation" warning -- james On 12/28/2016 11:41 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: Hi James, in Linux we have a pretty clear policy to avoid breaking existing real life userspace. Given that Sebastian (and probably

Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] lpfc: Deprecate lpfc_soft_wwn parameter

Hi James, in Linux we have a pretty clear policy to avoid breaking existing real life userspace. Given that Sebastian (and probably other users as well) make use of the soft WWN feature we can't just remove it. Which btw is what this patch does - deprecating is telling people to not use if,

Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] lpfc: Deprecate lpfc_soft_wwn parameter

Sebastian, "not portable" isn't the right way to describe it. It's not a chip-architecture issue, but rather that some oem platforms have side-band management that overrides anything that could have been done in the os, and in ways that may not be easy to communicate back to the driver.

Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] lpfc: Deprecate lpfc_soft_wwn parameter

James Smart wrote: > I competes, without reasonable solutions to resolve which should be > what at what time, with things like fabric-assigned wwn's as well as > platform-oem name assignments via platform mechanisms. Too many > admin planes competing. > > -- james FA-WWN seems to be fabric

Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] lpfc: Deprecate lpfc_soft_wwn parameter

I competes, without reasonable solutions to resolve which should be what at what time, with things like fabric-assigned wwn's as well as platform-oem name assignments via platform mechanisms. Too many admin planes competing. -- james On 12/22/2016 2:00 PM, Sebastian Herbszt wrote: James

Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] lpfc: Deprecate lpfc_soft_wwn parameter

James Smart wrote: > Deprecate lpfc_soft_wwn parameter. > No longer allow override of hw-assigned wwns > > Signed-off-by: Dick Kennedy > Signed-off-by: James Smart Any reason to remove this functionality? I was actually using it. Sebastian

Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] lpfc: Deprecate lpfc_soft_wwn parameter

On 12/20/2016 12:07 AM, James Smart wrote: > > Deprecate lpfc_soft_wwn parameter. > No longer allow override of hw-assigned wwns > > Signed-off-by: Dick Kennedy > Signed-off-by: James Smart > --- > drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc.h | 4 - >

[PATCH v2 03/11] lpfc: Deprecate lpfc_soft_wwn parameter

Deprecate lpfc_soft_wwn parameter. No longer allow override of hw-assigned wwns Signed-off-by: Dick Kennedy Signed-off-by: James Smart --- drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc.h | 4 - drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_attr.c | 216