From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755153Ab0JFEv2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Oct 2010 00:51:28 -0400 Received: from smtp108.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.198.106]:41342 "HELO smtp108.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753811Ab0JFEv0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Oct 2010 00:51:26 -0400 X-Yahoo-SMTP: fzDSGlOswBCWnIOrNw7KwwK1j9PqyNbe5PtLKiS4dDU.UNl_t6bdEZu9tTLW X-YMail-OSG: 1Eo9n34VM1mjqV3LJnDpsBcGGrjoSTnNO6fhMLld4a4uFHk h4PGmX6RPoXE4e1HQrxBWKgFtApVLoOZ2FX_Ik0BdbnMgN3es1FlhKEQCBLZ kEIxX2N6oHR20wpguJQ4vjZj_0qy_DgoG5xCmBuVNwFJbpVPSDzK5QiW9RLK yzzQ6unKud8YbayRCTf2Dt.FulauM0NAgnzIh4iSs7XFXU_AwhdgqTfJvaYu Obl.K6rHZyAwij22azPWbGngY2FOoCIny2Td8OPDYqoLVjjHVBeJhJaSuOPv bnFpIPhSesSdvG9R.u.Xlw9AAwicgqgn4LkpRFwmNcVcHIKaiSb7JOnoFi8y 5CpgG5UbHF15e00JtGQ-- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Subject: Re: [RFC v2 00/21] TCM Core and TCM_Loop patches for v2.6.37 From: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" To: FUJITA Tomonori Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, michaelc@cs.wisc.edu, hch@lst.de, hare@suse.de, James.Bottomley@suse.de, axboe@kernel.dk, bharrosh@panasas.com, Jeff Garzik , Tejun Heo In-Reply-To: <20101006111621O.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> References: <1285195702-11421-1-git-send-email-nab@linux-iscsi.org> <20101006111621O.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:46:45 -0700 Message-Id: <1286340405.5685.93.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 11:21 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:48:22 -0700 > "Nicholas A. Bellinger" wrote: > > > drivers/Kconfig | 2 + > > drivers/Makefile | 1 + > > drivers/target/Kbuild | 30 + > > drivers/target/Kconfig | 36 + > > Why do we need a new place for the target stuff? This could be used > for non scsi protocl? > Yes, I have envisioned the princaple pieces of TCM/ConfigFS design being very much SCSI fabric independent from the start of v3.0 development, and I think the v4.0 virtual HBA/DEV abstraction now present in target_core_configfs.c and fabric module independent control plane in target_core_fabric_configfs.c does demonstrate this design feature. Of course doing 'SCSI-less' target mode this would still involve some work to target_core_transport.c to add ATA specific emulation/passthrough and disable others for the default SPC-3 emulation logic currently in place. However, I do believe the TCM subsystem plugin API in target_core_transport.h for pSCSI, iBLOCK, FILEIO, etc is already more or less SCSI fabric independent and adding a libata subsystem plugin (eg: with it's own set of TCM fabric modules) minus current libata-scsi.c glue code would be possible if the libata folks would like to entertain that discussion.. > We had the similar discussion when I put stgt to mainline but we > concluded that under drivers/scsi is the best place. > > I don't like to put ibmvscsi driver under something like > drivers/target/tcm_ibmvscsit because ibmvscsi needs to include some > files under drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/. It's more reasonable to put the > driver there. > > Can we change the name, TCM (Target Core Mod), to something more > informative? I think that "Core Mod" is really pointless. > > This will be the mainline scsi target feature so why can't we name > the files and modules in more appropriate way? Honestly, I tend not to care very much about naming and things, but that said I would really hate to have to rename actual TCM code at this point for .37 (other than say directory location/layout and file names) while the drivers/target/lio-target -> iscsi_proto.h conversion is still on our TODO list. Best, --nab