From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] LIO/SCST Merger Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:31:34 -0800 Message-ID: <1453919494.2322.28.camel@HansenPartnership.com> References: <56A9043B.7030207@sandisk.com> <1453918104.2322.26.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <56A90A20.3020101@sandisk.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:42320 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934825AbcA0Sbg (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2016 13:31:36 -0500 In-Reply-To: <56A90A20.3020101@sandisk.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Bart Van Assche , "lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org" Cc: target-devel , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 10:19 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 01/27/2016 10:08 AM, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 09:54 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > Last year, during the 2015 LSF/MM summit, it has been decided > > > that > > > the LIO/SCST merger project should proceed by sending the > > > functionality upstream that is present in SCST but not yet in > > > LIO. > > > This will help to reduce the workload of target driver > > > maintainers > > > that maintain a version of their target driver for both LIO and > > > SCST > > > (QLogic FC and FCoE target drivers, Emulex FC and FCoE target > > > drivers, RDMA iSER target driver, RDMA SRP target driver, ...). > > > My > > > proposal is to organize a session during which the following is > > > discussed: > > > * Which patches are already upstream in the context of the > > > LIO/SCST > > > merger project. > > > * About which patches there is agreement but that are not yet > > > upstream. > > > * To discuss how to proceed from here and what to address first. > > > > Can you begin this in email ... I don't think any of us are clear > > if > > there's still an issue here ... or that we'd say more than send the > > patches upstream, like we did last year. Just reporting on patch > > status isn't that useful ... if there were design disputes or > > issues to > > discuss that caused the patches not to be accepted, that would be > > more > > useful. > > Hello James, > > Several patch series have been posted by different authors. Some of > these patch series have already been reworked several times for > different kernel versions. I think a meeting in person would make it > easier to discuss which patch series to take upstream first and > thereby avoid to have to keep reworking these patch series against an > evolving target API. These patch series are: > > * Christoph Hellwig, [RFC] simplify session shutdown, January 14 > (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.scsi.target.devel/11135). > * Nicholas Bellinger, [PATCH 0/2] target: Fix LUN_RESET active I/O + > TMR > handling, January 12, 2016 > (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.scsi.target.devel/11097). > * Bart Van Assche, [PATCH 00/21] SCSI target patches for kernel > v4.5, > January 5 ( > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.scsi.target.devel/10905) So you don't really want a topic, you want a BoF? We can do that. James