From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hch@lst.de (Christoph Hellwig) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 19:30:04 +0200 Subject: [RFC PATCH 8/8] nvmet: add configfs interface for target passthru In-Reply-To: References: <20180330065747.20962-1-chaitanya.kulkarni@wdc.com> <20180330065747.20962-9-chaitanya.kulkarni@wdc.com> Message-ID: <20180413173004.GC23674@lst.de> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018@12:13:28PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > I *really* dislike this interface. Not only is the "pt" directory > confusing to the user, it's nearly identical to what a subsystem is. So > as developers, if we want to add a config option to a subsystem we also > have to add it to the equivalent pt. I've already seen one patch set > that would be mutually exclusive to this only because of the > configuration mess. > > I'd much rather see either a couple new attributes in the existing > subsystem Maybe. But how would you design it? Have a passthrough filed under the subsystem that you can echo a controller name to? And then make the exclusive vs creating namespaces? > or some mechanism such that if you create a namespace that > points to a controller (eg /dev/nvme1) it takes it as though you're > trying to pass through the whole NVMe device. (The code would need to > ensure that a passthrough subsystem configured this way could only have > exactly one namespace.) Ugg. Hell no! Way too much magic.