From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vladislav Bolkhovitin Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2008-discuss] Kernel Summit Request for Discussion: The Future of Target mode and Cloud storage on Linux Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:00:25 +0400 Message-ID: <48AF0CC9.6060904@vlnb.net> References: <48ADC53B.6090501@vlnb.net> <48ADFAB7.5010201@cs.wisc.edu> <1219362832.3265.59.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-relay-04.mailcluster.net ([77.221.130.216]:56983 "EHLO mail-relay-02.mailcluster.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752213AbYHVTAK (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:00:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1219362832.3265.59.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Mike Christie , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, ksummit-2008-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org, "Nicholas A. Bellinger" , FUJITA Tomonori , scst-devel James Bottomley wrote: > On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 18:31 -0500, Mike Christie wrote: >> I think James also said something about moving STGT in-kernel to get >> performance gains, but I do not think it means that we have to push >> exact code that sits in Tomo's git tree from usrspace into the kernel. >> If along the way we replace it with scst or Nick's code and we end up >> with a variant of scst or Nicks code that can still support userspace >> targets then I do not think any one is going to make long threads like >> these have resulted in :) > > I meant actually allowing performance critical pieces to work either > in-user or in-kernel. How, I'm not sure ... if we could use the same > code for both, that would be brilliant ... if we have to have separate > pieces, that will be OK. > > The error injection and transport debug people think it's important to > have the state machine in user space for fast prototyping and debugging, > so I'm not going to take this away from them. Nobody has been asking you about that. Simply, there's no need in it. >> Will this work for everyone? > > Sounds like a plan. (However, it also sounds suspiciously like the last > plan we had from the storage summit which didn't actually attract any > implementers ...) I at that time heard nothing about it. Nobody asked me, nobody let me know about it and nobody asked me to participate. Nothing about it was in linux-scsi. It was completely behind my back. Vlad