[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xen-devel] Re: [RFC PATCH 35/35] Add Xen virtual block device driver.
- To: boutcher@xxxxxxxxxx
- From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:32:18 +0900
- Cc: m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx, michaelc@xxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jeff@xxxxxxxxxx, ian.pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, chrisw@xxxxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 00:33:57 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
From: boutcher@xxxxxxxxxx (Dave C Boutcher)
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 35/35] Add Xen virtual block device driver.
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:19:56 -0600
> Mike Christie wrote:
> > Does the IBM vscsi code/SPEC follow the SRP SPEC or is it slightly
> > modified? We also have a SRP initiator in kernel now too. It is just not
> > in the drivers/scsi dir.
> The goal was to follow the SRP spec 100%. We added one other optional
> command set (different protocol identifier than SRP) to exchange some
> information like "who is at the other end", but the intent was that
> the SRP part was right from the spec.
> I think, since we implemented this in three operating systems (Linux,
> AIX, and OS/400) using the T10 spec as the reference that we are probably
> pretty close.
About the target side, the lun structure is very different the spec
(tgt implements this as a user-space library).
> And yeah, I'm aware that there is another SRP implementation in the
> kernel...Merging would be good...
Do you have any plans for this?
I've been thinking about writing something like scsi_transport_srp,
which can help the initiator and target drivers. I like to enable tgt
to support RDMA-capable adapters.
Xen-devel mailing list