From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Reinecke Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] bnx2i: Add bnx2i iSCSI driver. Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 10:47:01 +0200 Message-ID: <483D1C05.70101@suse.de> References: <1211578969.26900.5.camel@dhcp-10-13-110-217.broadcom.com> <20080527.125247.73979652.davem@davemloft.net> <1211935729.18326.185.camel@dell> <483CD3F3.6070308@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Michael Chan , David Miller , rdreier@cisco.com, anilgv@broadcom.com, michaelc@cs.wisc.edu, netdev , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, open-iscsi@googlegroups.com To: Jeff Garzik Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:44884 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751170AbYE1IrJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 May 2008 04:47:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: <483CD3F3.6070308@garzik.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi all, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Michael Chan wrote: >> If we change the implementation to use a separate IP address and >> separate MAC address for iSCSI, will it be acceptable? The iSCSI IP= /MAC >> addresses will be unknown to the Linux TCP stack and so no sharing o= f >> the 4-tuple space will be needed. >> >> The patches will be very similar, except that all inet calls and >> notifiers will be removed. >=20 >=20 > IMO a totally separate MAC and IP would definitely be preferred... >=20 And as it happens, the machines I have here claim to use a different MAC address for iSCSI anyway. So we should be using them. Cheers, Hannes --=20 Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=FCrnberg GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG N=FCrnberg)