From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Reinecke Subject: Re: multipath-tools Makefile Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 08:13:28 +0200 Message-ID: <4678C588.3030606@suse.de> References: <20070618225947.26450.qmail@sourceware.org> <1182214679.5301.88.camel@linuxchandra> <1182287728.20149.255.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1182288343.5301.111.camel@linuxchandra> <1182288865.20149.259.camel@localhost.localdomain> Reply-To: device-mapper development Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1182288865.20149.259.camel@localhost.localdomain> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: christophe varoqui Cc: device-mapper development List-Id: dm-devel.ids Christophe Varoqui wrote: > Le mardi 19 juin 2007 =C3=A0 14:25 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman a =C3=A9c= rit : >> On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 23:15 +0200, Christophe Varoqui wrote: >>> Le lundi 18 juin 2007 =C3=A0 17:57 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman a =C3=A9= crit : >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Sorry about the late response. I just realized that pp_rdac has been >>>> added to the multipath tree. >>>> >>>> pp_rdac is not needed to support lsi-rdac devices. pp_tpc performs >>>> equally good. I repeated my tests with pp_tpc and they did work well= . >>>> >>> rdac has superseded the tpc checker in the upstream tree. >>> >> (A): >>> This checker is currently the only one usable with LSI Engenio hardwa= re >>> integrated by either IBM or SGI. As such I don't plan on removing it >>> from the tree, if it's ok with you. >>> >> I am little confused here. >> >> Background info: >> ------ >> (1) When I said we do _not_ need pp_rdac, I am referring to path >> priority callout code(the code I submitted on May 21st). Code under th= e >> directory path_priority/pp_rdac. >> >> (2) The path checker code I submitted on March 23rd is needed to suppo= rt >> the LSI Engenio hardware. This code resides in libcheckers/rdac.c >> ------ >> >> (2) is needed and I presume you are referring to that at (A)=20 >> >> (1) is not needed and we can achieve the same with >> path_priority/pp_tpc/mpath_prio_tpc >> >=20 > The confusion was on my side, thank you for pointing it. > I'll get back to my homework then. >=20 Or we finally resolve this issue by renaming pp_tpc to pp_rdac. pp_tpc is sadly a misnomer as it was originally developed against SGI TPC arrays, of which I only had insufficient documentation. Only later I found out that this was actually a RDAC controller. Christophe, go. Cheers, Hannes --=20 Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=C3=BCrnberg GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG N=C3=BCrnberg)