lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:46:45 -0700 From: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org> To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp> Cc: linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, michaelc@...wisc.edu, hch@....de, hare@...e.de, James.Bottomley@...e.de, axboe@...nel.dk, bharrosh@...asas.com, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC v2 00/21] TCM Core and TCM_Loop patches for v2.6.37 On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 11:21 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:48:22 -0700 > "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org> 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists