From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley 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 14:13:21 -0500 Message-ID: <1219432401.3339.79.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <48ADC53B.6090501@vlnb.net> <48ADFAB7.5010201@cs.wisc.edu> <1219362832.3265.59.camel@localhost.localdomain> <48AF0CC9.6060904@vlnb.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from accolon.hansenpartnership.com ([76.243.235.52]:51094 "EHLO accolon.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751508AbYHVTNZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:13:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <48AF0CC9.6060904@vlnb.net> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Vladislav Bolkhovitin Cc: Mike Christie , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, ksummit-2008-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org, "Nicholas A. Bellinger" , FUJITA Tomonori , scst-devel On Fri, 2008-08-22 at 23:00 +0400, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote: > 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. I wasn't aware you were privy to my conversations ... however, I suggest that you must have missed it. Quite a few people who want to work on transports don't have the budget for the hardware. Emulators are things they use to get around this problem. To them, therefore, it's a definite need. > >> 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. http://www.usenix.org/events/lsf08/ summaries page 6. The invitation to participate was here: http://marc.info/?t=119325401900042 James