From: Dmitry Y. <dmi...@ya...> - 2005-04-20 13:52:50
|
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 01:18 -0700, Mike Christie wrote: > Dmitry Yusupov wrote: > > On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 20:13 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > >>One important thing that needs working out is the proper splitup between > >>scsi_transport_iscsi, iscsi_if and iscsi_tcp. The current split is not > >>so nice, we really only want one transport class thing, so iscsi_if > >>should merge into scsi_transport_iscsi. > > > > > > Exactly what I was thinking of. I always had a thought that having > > iscsi_if and scsi_transport_iscsi separated is not very clean from > > mainline kernel perspective. > > > > iscsi_if should just disappear and be part of scsi_transport_iscsi. > > > > One potential issue with that is that other initiators relying on it. > > So, this merge should be backward compatible at least for a while, so it > > will not break much existing initiators. I care only about 4.x branch > > frankly. > > > > I do not think backaward compat should be a concern. > > For 4.x, we are set. People that want new stuff should be testing out > open-iscsi, so there is no worry about upgrading kernels and breaking crap. ok. that is even easier. do you have some immediate plan to work out this merge or should I come up with initial merged result? |