From: Vladislav B. <vs...@vl...> - 2008-08-27 18:06:24
|
James Bottomley wrote: > On Fri, 2008-08-22 at 23:00 +0400, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote: >> James Bottomley wrote: >>> On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 18:31 -0500, Mike Christie wrote: >>>> I think James also said something about moving STGT in-kernel to get >>>> performance gains, but I do not think it means that we have to push >>>> exact code that sits in Tomo's git tree from usrspace into the kernel. >>>> If along the way we replace it with scst or Nick's code and we end up >>>> with a variant of scst or Nicks code that can still support userspace >>>> targets then I do not think any one is going to make long threads like >>>> these have resulted in :) >>> I meant actually allowing performance critical pieces to work either >>> in-user or in-kernel. How, I'm not sure ... if we could use the same >>> code for both, that would be brilliant ... if we have to have separate >>> pieces, that will be OK. >>> >>> The error injection and transport debug people think it's important to >>> have the state machine in user space for fast prototyping and debugging, >>> so I'm not going to take this away from them. >> Nobody has been asking you about that. Simply, there's no need in it. > > I wasn't aware you were privy to my conversations ... however, I suggest > that you must have missed it. > > Quite a few people who want to work on transports don't have the budget > for the hardware. Emulators are things they use to get around this > problem. To them, therefore, it's a definite need. Seems, there is a confusion and we are writing about different things. I mean backstorage device emulation in user space (this is what scst_user provides), but seems you mean the opposite side of SCSI commands processing in target: target transports, i.e. target drivers, in user space, which emulate some SCSI transport, correct? >>>> Will this work for everyone? >>> Sounds like a plan. (However, it also sounds suspiciously like the last >>> plan we had from the storage summit which didn't actually attract any >>> implementers ...) >> I at that time heard nothing about it. Nobody asked me, nobody let me >> know about it and nobody asked me to participate. Nothing about it was >> in linux-scsi. It was completely behind my back. > > http://www.usenix.org/events/lsf08/ > > summaries page 6. > > The invitation to participate was here: > > http://marc.info/?t=119325401900042 I was aware about the event, although for obvious reasons wasn't able to participate. I meant not it, but the decision and the plan. Neither one of them was published in any public place, wasn't it? > James > > > |