From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Christie Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 19:25:47 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/33] TCMU PR: first commit to implement TCMU PR Message-Id: <5B25643B.8050109@redhat.com> List-Id: References: <20180615182342.6239-1-lszhu@suse.com> In-Reply-To: <20180615182342.6239-1-lszhu@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: target-devel@vger.kernel.org On 06/16/2018 02:20 PM, Mike Christie wrote: > Adding Bodo who is working on a alternative approach. > > On 06/16/2018 12:22 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 02:23:10AM +0800, Zhu Lingshan wrote: >>> >> These commits and the following intend to implement Persistent >>> >> Reservation operations for TCMU devices. >> > >> > Err, hell no. >> > >> > If you are that tightly integrated with the target code that you can >> > implement persistent reservation you need to use kernel code. >> > Everything else just creates a way too complex interface. > Hey Christoph, > > Just wanted to make sure I understood this comment. In Lingshan's > patches I think he was going to end up calling out to > userspace/tcmu-runner and there he was going to make ceph calls which > basically translate PGR operations to ceph requests. Are you saying we > should just add some kernel module that makes the ceph calls? This would > then avoid the mess of having the split PGR processing design in this > patchset? Oh yeah, I meant to also ask if I understood you correctly above, then did you also just want us to add the target_core_rbd module that did READ/WRITE/VAAI commands too?