Re: [linux-iscsi-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] replace ioctl for sysfs take 2

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>]

On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 17:05, Scott M. Ferris wrote:
> So a host is where you plug your (non-existent) bus?  I think it would
> be clearer to use terminology from SAM.

Actually, no.  A host is a SAM implementation, not SAM itself.  I think
the where are the resources question is the clearest way to look at it.

> > > Do you think switched SCSI transports should allocate one Linux host
> > > for each I_T nexus?
> > 
> > No.
> 
> This is exactly why I ask these questions.  The iSCSI driver
> developers just implemented this, because they thought this is what
> you and Christoph were asking for.  Apparently it's not what you
> wanted.

Well, that seems to be the correct thing to do.  Most of the time (all
of the time?) your virtual connection is to a single storage target, so
its identical to a bus with one device on it, isn't it? 

> > > Do you think switched SCSI transports should allocate one Linux host
> > > for each (SAM-2 or SAM-3) SCSI initiator device?
> > 
> > No.
> 
> Should all drivers that currently use one host for each SCSI initiator
> device, and a channel for each initiator port on each device, be
> modified to use a host for each initiator port?

I've made no secret about wanting to dump our channel abstraction. 
However, I'm not going to force a change like this.

James