From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Kelley Subject: Is there a grand plan for FC failover? Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:18:15 +0000 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <401521A7.5030808@thekelleys.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp.sanger.ac.uk ([193.62.203.215]:29244 "EHLO smtp.sanger.ac.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263775AbUAZORt (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:17:49 -0500 Received: from thekelleys.org.uk (srk@09559vai [172.25.17.183]) by smtp.sanger.ac.uk (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0QEHlGG177923 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:17:48 GMT List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org I see that 2.6.x kernels now have the qla2xxx driver in the mainline, but without the failover code. What is the reason for that? Is there a plan provide failover facilities at a higher level which will be usable with all suitable low-level drivers and hardware? I'm very much in favour of using drivers which are developed in the kernel mainline but I have an application which needs failover so I might be forced back to the qlogic-distributed code. Cheers, Simon.