From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Divy Le Ray Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/1] cxgb3i: cxgb3 iSCSI initiator Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:21:08 -0700 Message-ID: <200808121521.10101.divy@chelsio.com> References: <200808121457.11356.divy@chelsio.com> <20080812.150246.42068558.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rdreier@cisco.com, rick.jones2@hp.com, jgarzik@pobox.com, "Steve Wise" , "Karen Xie" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, open-iscsi@googlegroups.com, michaelc@cs.wisc.edu, daisyc@us.ibm.com, wenxiong@us.ibm.com, bhua@us.ibm.com, "Dimitrios Michailidis" , "Casey Leedom" , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: "David Miller" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080812.150246.42068558.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 12 August 2008 03:02:46 pm David Miller wrote: > From: Divy Le Ray > Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:57:09 -0700 > > > In any case, such a stateless solution is not yet designed, whereas > > accelerated iSCSI is available now, from us and other companies. > > So, WHAT?! > > There are TOE pieces of crap out there too. Well, there is demand for accerated iscsi out there, which is the driving reason of our driver submission. > > It's strictly not our problem. > > Like Herbert said, this is the TOE discussion all over again. > The results will be the same, and as per our decisions wrt. > TOE, history speaks for itself. Herbert requested some benchmark numbers, I consequently obliged. Cheers, Divy