Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:49:53 -0600 From: "Scott M. Ferris" <sferris@gmail.com> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> Cc: Peter Blok <pblok@bsd4all.org> Subject: Re: My project wish-list for the next 12 months Message-ID: <1eea89cd041214144956dff5b4@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20041214220240.GA10407@infradead.org> References: <20041214072922.2604543D1D@mx1.FreeBSD.org> <1eea89cd041214114766fd34dc@mail.gmail.com> <20041214220240.GA10407@infradead.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:02:40 +0000, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote: > > Note that this isn't different from any sufficiently complex HBA driver, > except that the code that can operate under these conditions is more > complex for iscsi. I don't understand why you think the situation is at all comparable to other HBA drivers. The complexity of the HBA driver code isn't the real issue. The problem with software-only iSCSI HBA drivers is that they usually try to make use of the OS TCP stack, and that stack usually wasn't designed to operate under the constraints that an HBA driver has to operate under. The correctness of a software-only iSCSI HBA driver depends on properties of the TCP stack, as well as the HBA driver's code. I don't think that's true of any other HBA driver. -- Scott M. Ferris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1eea89cd041214144956dff5b4>