| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] Re: [RFC PATCH 35/35] Add Xen virtual block device driver.
|
To: |
Mike Christie <michaelc@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Subject: |
[Xen-devel] Re: [RFC PATCH 35/35] Add Xen virtual block device driver. |
|
From: |
boutcher@xxxxxxxxxx (Dave C Boutcher) |
|
Date: |
Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:19:56 -0600 |
|
Cc: |
Ian Pratt <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, SCSI Mailing List <linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dave C Boutcher <boutcher@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ian Pratt <ian.pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Delivery-date: |
Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:00:11 +0000 |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<442442CB.4090603@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
List-help: |
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
|
List-id: |
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-post: |
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-subscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
|
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
|
References: |
<A95E2296287EAD4EB592B5DEEFCE0E9D4B9E8A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4421D943.1090804@xxxxxxxxxx> <1143202673.18986.5.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4423E853.1040707@xxxxxxxxxx> <4423F60B.6020805@xxxxxxxxxx> <1143207657.2882.65.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4423F91F.4060007@xxxxxxxxxx> <17444.4455.240044.724257@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <442442CB.4090603@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
Mike Christie wrote:
> Does the IBM vscsi code/SPEC follow the SRP SPEC or is it slightly
> modified? We also have a SRP initiator in kernel now too. It is just not
> in the drivers/scsi dir.
The goal was to follow the SRP spec 100%. We added one other optional
command set (different protocol identifier than SRP) to exchange some
information like "who is at the other end", but the intent was that
the SRP part was right from the spec.
I think, since we implemented this in three operating systems (Linux,
AIX, and OS/400) using the T10 spec as the reference that we are probably
pretty close.
And yeah, I'm aware that there is another SRP implementation in the
kernel...Merging would be good...
Dave B
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home