Re: [linux-iscsi-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] replace ioctl for sysfs take 2

[Mike Christie <mikenc@us.ibm.com>]

James Bottomley wrote:

> On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 17:12, Mike Christie wrote:
> 
>>>This is exactly why I ask these questions.  The iSCSI driver
>>>developers just implemented this, because they thought this is what
>>>you and Christoph were asking for.  Apparently it's not what you
>>>wanted.
>>
>>Thank you for clarifying this. So we should go back to a single linux host,
>>right? The iscsi session is an I_T nexus, so the only way to store the
>>session state in the host is to allocate a session per host.
> 
> 
> No; for iscsi, the host and target for I_T is the right thing to do.
> 
> The reason why doesn't lie in terminology or a specification, it lies in
> the code.
> 
> When the cisco-iscsi driver was first presented, it had a single host
> for everything and a huge connection management resource array hanging
> off that.  This was clearly wrong beacuse there was a huge overhead
> managing the array.  The correct approach was to make the host
> correspond to a single element of that array and use the mid-layer host
> management functions instead of home grown resource management
> functions.  Doing it this way makes both the management and presentation
> of the information more logical and the code cleaner.

Ok. If the new magic iscsi transport specific target code handles target 
data like the scsi_host does for hostdata then would it be better to put 
our session struct in the target data? I think this also simplifies 
refcounting. Most session stuff makes sense hanging off the target so 
this might be easier, right?


> James
> 
> 
>