From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Christie Subject: Re: SCSI API generics (was Re: [PATCH] add block/unblock to iscsi class) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:55:26 -0800 Message-ID: <421CDFAE.4090108@us.ibm.com> References: <421C3CA4.8070009@cs.wisc.edu> <20050223181705.GA8694@plap.qlogic.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.131]:24971 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261553AbVBWTzY (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:55:24 -0500 Received: from d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.107]) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j1NJtL0D165238 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:55:21 -0500 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j1NJtLIv137008 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:55:21 -0700 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j1NJtLpW009067 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:55:21 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20050223181705.GA8694@plap.qlogic.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Vasquez Cc: Linux-SCSI Mailing List Andrew Vasquez wrote: > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Mike Christie wrote: > > >>The attached patch copies the code from the fc transport >>class which allows a LLD to block and unblock a device. >>The block/unblock code is used by the iscsi-sfnet >>driver in replacement of a internal timer doing the >>same thing. >> >>I understand that the target code is under construction >>and our group as well as the HW iSCSI guys are trying to move >>to something closer to the fc's rport model, so I was not >>sure if it is better to wait or get this basic functionality in >>first so we (and other SW and HW iSCSI drivers) can kill some >>of our duplicated code sooner and then incrementally update >>the class. >> > > > Speaking of which, are there any major objections to the patches > proposed here: > > Add scsi_target_[un]block() and scsi_target_remove() generics > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=110867050306738&w=2 > > [RFC] adding per scsi-host workqueues for defered processing > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=110903148407438&w=2 > When using single_threaded_workqueues do all single threaded ones in the system use the same cpu_workqueue_struct? Will this be a potential bottleneck if we end up using the workqueue for more operations in the future?