From: Dmitry Y. <dmi...@ya...> - 2005-04-20 18:51:13
|
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 11:43 -0700, Mike Christie wrote: > Dmitry Yusupov wrote: > > 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? > > > > Just cook up a patch. If you are asking becuase you have no time I can > do this for you though. It does not matter to me. Would be nice. Thanks! |