From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Christie Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] RFC: The be2iscsi driver support for bsg Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:11:18 -0500 Message-ID: <4BA3E876.5000706@cs.wisc.edu> References: <20100317180647.GA25863@serverengines.com> <20100318225808Z.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> <4BA294FC.3030400@cs.wisc.edu> <20100319081016W.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from sabe.cs.wisc.edu ([128.105.6.20]:43214 "EHLO sabe.cs.wisc.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752937Ab0CSVHq (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:07:46 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100319081016W.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: open-iscsi@googlegroups.com Cc: FUJITA Tomonori , jayamohank@serverengines.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, James.Bottomley@suse.de On 03/18/2010 06:10 PM, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:02:52 -0500 > Mike Christie wrote: > >> On 03/18/2010 08:58 AM, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: >>> >>> - You invent your hardware specific data structure for the simplest >>> operation such as setting IP address. >> >> I think this is what Jay is not trying to do. I think the patch has some >> extra code like the ISCSI_BSG_HST_VENDOR parts that makes it confusing - >> it got me too. The ISCSI_BSG_HST_VENDOR code in be2iscsi looks like it >> is basically disabled (should remove for a formal patch when he sends >> for merging). >> >> It looks like there is a common struct iscsi_bsg_common_format that is >> getting passed around, and then in be2iscsi the driver is using that >> info to make a be2iscsi specific command. So scsi_transport_iscsi / >> ISCSI_SET_IP_ADDR / iscsi_bsg_common_format gets translated by b2iscsi >> to b2iscsi / OPCODE_COMMON_ISCSI_NTWK_MODIFY_IP_ADDR / be_modify_ip_addr. > > Yeah, seems you are right. But looks like this patchset also adds the > vendor specific message support (ISCSI_BSG_HST_VENDOR)? Yeah, you are right. That should go in a separate patch and sent later.