Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1418342

Re: NVMe over Fabrics target implementation

From Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: NVMe over Fabrics target implementation
Date 2016-06-09 15:50 +0200
Message-ID <rI8vo-72W-23@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (2 earlier) <rHmTL-1Cx-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <rHEdY-4hc-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <rHKCK-8sB-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <rHLyN-E7-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <rHZV8-1pg-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 09:36:15PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> The configfs ABI should not dictate a single backend use-case.

And it doesn't.  I actually had a file backend implemented to
benchmark it against the loopback driver.  It needed absolutely
zero new configfs interface.  And if we at some point want
different backends using different attributes we can trivially
add them using configfs_register_group.

> Along with having common code and existing configfs
> ABI, we also get a proper starting point for target-core
> features that span across endpoints, and are defined for
> both scsi and nvme.  PR APTPL immediately comes to mind.

PRs are a useful feature on the road map.  However we need a separate
pluggable backend anyway for distributed backends like RBD or Bart's
DLM implementation.  Also the current LIO PR implementation will need
a lot of work to be usable for NVMe while actually following the
spec in all it's details and to be power Ń•afe.   The right way to
go here is a PR API that allows different backends, and the existing
LIO one might be one of them after it's got the needed attention.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

NVMe over Fabrics target implementation Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> - 2016-06-06 23:30 +0200
  [PATCH 3/3] nvme-loop: add a NVMe loopback host driver Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> - 2016-06-06 23:30 +0200
  Re: NVMe over Fabrics target implementation "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org> - 2016-06-07 08:30 +0200
    Re: NVMe over Fabrics target implementation Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> - 2016-06-07 13:00 +0200
      Re: NVMe over Fabrics target implementation "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org> - 2016-06-08 07:30 +0200
        Re: NVMe over Fabrics target implementation Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> - 2016-06-08 14:20 +0200
          Re: NVMe over Fabrics target implementation Sagi Grimberg <sagi@lightbits.io> - 2016-06-08 15:20 +0200
            Re: NVMe over Fabrics target implementation Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> - 2016-06-08 15:50 +0200
            Re: NVMe over Fabrics target implementation "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org> - 2016-06-09 06:40 +0200
              Re: NVMe over Fabrics target implementation Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> - 2016-06-09 15:50 +0200
          Re: NVMe over Fabrics target implementation "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org> - 2016-06-09 05:40 +0200
    Re: NVMe over Fabrics target implementation Andy Grover <agrover@redhat.com> - 2016-06-07 23:10 +0200
      Re: NVMe over Fabrics target implementation Ming Lin <mlin@kernel.org> - 2016-06-07 23:20 +0200
  Re: NVMe over Fabrics target implementation Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> - 2016-06-07 19:40 +0200

csiph-web