From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael Chan" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] bnx2i: Add bnx2i iSCSI driver. Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 17:48:49 -0700 Message-ID: <1211935729.18326.185.camel@dell> References: <1211578969.26900.5.camel@dhcp-10-13-110-217.broadcom.com> <20080527.125247.73979652.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mms2.broadcom.com ([216.31.210.18]:1601 "EHLO mms2.broadcom.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754676AbYE0Xnr (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 May 2008 19:43:47 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080527.125247.73979652.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Cc: rdreier@cisco.com, anilgv@broadcom.com, michaelc@cs.wisc.edu, netdev , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, open-iscsi@googlegroups.com On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 12:52 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Roland Dreier > Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 07:38:19 -0700 > > > So you are creating sockets just to reserve TCP ports to avoid host > > stack clashes with your offload engine? Wasn't this approach strongly > > rejected (in the context of iWARP) in the past? > > Yes, it was, and likewise similar hacks in other areas will > be rejected similarly. > If we change the implementation to use a separate IP address and separate MAC address for iSCSI, will it be acceptable? The iSCSI IP/MAC addresses will be unknown to the Linux TCP stack and so no sharing of the 4-tuple space will be needed. The patches will be very similar, except that all inet calls and notifiers will be removed.