[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080813.161237.10205799.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:12:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: rdreier@...co.com
Cc: rick.jones2@...com, jgarzik@...ox.com, swise@...ngridcomputing.com,
divy@...lsio.com, kxie@...lsio.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
open-iscsi@...glegroups.com, michaelc@...wisc.edu,
daisyc@...ibm.com, wenxiong@...ibm.com, bhua@...ibm.com,
dm@...lsio.com, leedom@...lsio.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/1] cxgb3i: cxgb3 iSCSI initiator
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:03:15 -0700
> OK, I admit you could make something work -- add hooks for the low-level
> driver to ask the iSCSI initiator where PDU boundaries are so it can
> resync when something is evicted from the flow cache, have the initiator
> format its tags in a special way to encode placement data, etc, etc.
> The scheme does bring to mind Alan's earlier comment about pigs and
> propulsion, though.
There would need to be _NO_ hooks into the iSCSI initiator at all.
The card would land the block I/O data onto the necessary page boundaries
and the iSCSI code would just be able to thus use the pages directly
and as-is.
It would look perfectly like normal TCP receive traffic. No hooks,
no special cases, nothing like that.
> In any case, as I said in the part of my email that you snipped, the
> real issue is not designing hypothetical hardware, but deciding how to
> support the Chelsio, Broadcom, etc hardware that exists today.
The same like we support TOE hardware that exists today. That is, we
don't.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists