From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 22:10:37 -0700 From: Anish Jhaveri To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: sagi@grimberg.me, keith.busch@intel.com, axboe@kernel.dk, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] nvme multipath support on top of nvme-4.13 branch Message-ID: <20170919051036.ttno3memte777ddx@haynes> References: <20170912042048.pdbyl6vsoeui6bnp@haynes> <20170915180701.GA8981@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20170915180701.GA8981@lst.de> Return-Path: anish.jhaveri@paviliondata.com List-ID: On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 08:07:01PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Hi Anish, > > I looked over the code a bit, and I'm rather confused by the newly > added commands. Which controller supports them? Also the NVMe > working group went down a very different way with the ALUA approch, > which uses different grouping concepts and doesn't require path > activations - for Linux we'd really like to stick to only standardized > multipath implementations. Hi Christoph, Thanks for looking over the code. The newly added commands were to support Asymmetric NVME Namespace Subsystem. Though, I can remove those commands and make it active-active configuration. I noticed you have sent out the review with changes adding new structures and functions which makes it very similar in terms of implementation. The only reason I proposed given changes, as it doesn't require any change to kernel.