From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [(re)Announce] Emulex LightPulse Device Driver Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 22:26:18 +0100 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040513222618.A16617@infradead.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from phoenix.infradead.org ([213.86.99.234]:6410 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265140AbUEMV0T (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 May 2004 17:26:19 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from David.Egolf@Bull.com on Thu, May 13, 2004 at 02:21:24PM -0700 List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: David.Egolf@Bull.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 02:21:24PM -0700, David.Egolf@Bull.com wrote: > The first bullet on your post is of interest to us. We currently support > customers with Emulex fc cards using a 2.4 kernel on IA64. Our software > employs the hba api supplied from Emulex in order determine the > configuration of the SAN(s) connected to the cards. > > Your comment is on the terse side. Is your comment directed at this > particular implementation of the hba api code, the current packaging > situation, or do you have a general disregard for the hba api strategy? In > short, do you believe that the hba api can and/or should be supported for > the Emulex LightPulse Device Driver? The SNIA HBA API is horrible interface, and we won't support it as a mean to interact with the kernel. We're looking into a common API for quering attributes of FC HBAs using sysfs and the fc transport class. If someone wants to build a HBA API library ontop of that - we'll not my business.