From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sven Schuetz Subject: Re: [RFC] FC pass thru - Rev IV Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:46:39 +0100 Message-ID: <492ACC5F.8070004@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1227043498.4949.21.camel@ogier> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mtagate7.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.140]:42039 "EHLO mtagate7.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752225AbYKXPqm (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:46:42 -0500 Received: from d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.185]) by mtagate7.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAOFkfT5246800 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:46:41 GMT Received: from d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.212]) by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id mAOFkepp1560708 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:46:40 GMT Received: from d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mAOFkeYF032398 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:46:40 GMT In-Reply-To: <1227043498.4949.21.camel@ogier> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James.Smart@Emulex.Com Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, seokmann.ju@qlogic.com, andrew.vasquez@qlogic.com Hi James, thanks for the rework, looks pretty good two me :) One first question below. James Smart wrote: > + /* fc_host Message Codes */ > +#define FC_BSG_HST_ADD_RPORT (FC_BSG_HST_MASK | 0x00000001) > +#define FC_BSG_HST_DEL_RPORT (FC_BSG_HST_MASK | 0x00000002) > +#define FC_BSG_HST_ELS_NOLOGIN (FC_BSG_HST_MASK | 0x00000003) > +#define FC_BSG_HST_VENDOR (FC_BSG_HST_MASK | 0x000000FF) > + Shouldn't we add FC_BSG_HST_CT_NOLOGIN as well? As far as I can see from looking over the patch (correct me when I am wrong), the way to issue a CT request now is to send an FC_BSG_HST_ADD_RPORT for the wka port in question (if not enumerated by the driver, which zfcp does not do), then send the FC_BSG_RPT_CT followed by a FC_BSG_HST_DEL_RPORT. I was under the impression the CT stuff was one of the main reasons to have devices for the fc_host. What do you think? > + /* fc_rport Message Codes */ > +#define FC_BSG_RPT_ELS (FC_BSG_RPT_MASK | 0x00000001) > +#define FC_BSG_RPT_CT (FC_BSG_RPT_MASK | 0x00000002) > + Sven