From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Smart Subject: Re: [PATCH] fc transport: new attributes for NPIV Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:00:33 -0500 Message-ID: <43C3F641.8070508@emulex.com> References: Reply-To: James.Smart@Emulex.Com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from emulex.emulex.com ([138.239.112.1]:44764 "EHLO emulex.emulex.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932293AbWAJSA7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:00:59 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Herrmann Cc: Christoph Hellwig , James Bottomley , Linux SCSI Andreas Herrmann wrote: > I think physical_port_name was not the right choice. Sticking to > standards the name should be permanent_port_name. So people familiar > with FC standards have an idea what it is and all others are able to > find an explanation in FC-GS-4. > > But introducing a permanent_port_id will lead to confusion: > Interpretation as "permanent port_id" is wrong because a port_id is > anything but "permanent". Agreed. In truth, even the permanent_port_name, relative to the virtual port, is also anything but permanent. > In conclusion James' suggestion of attributes ppn and ppn_id has some > advantage. > > And now comes the funny part: > Question is, do I need the port_id of the physical port at all? In my opinion - no... > In > order to determine problems with a virtual port I might have to check > whether the physical port is properly connected and logged in to the > fabric. Furthermore configuration of the corresponding switch port > should be checked. (E.g. switch might allow to set limits for the > number of NPIV connections for the switch port.) > I may be wrong but I think the port_id of the physical port is not > needed for this purpose. > > Thus, how about introducing just what is really needed: > Introduce permanent_port_name attribute (and leave out port_id of the > physical port). Works for me. -- james s > > BTW, the permanent_port_name attribute of the virtual port suffices to > identify the fc_host of the physical port if there is a > representation. > And I think an LLDD should configure this attribute only for virtual > ports. > > > Regards, > > Andreas > >