From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: hare@suse.de (Hannes Reinecke)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 09:45:29 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] nvmet: EUI64 support
In-Reply-To: <20180509070858.GA20363@lst.de>
References: <20180504112845.38820-1-hare@suse.de>
 <20180504112845.38820-2-hare@suse.de>
 <20180509070858.GA20363@lst.de>
Message-ID: <20180509094529.2fb1cffe@pentland.suse.de>

On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:08:58 +0200
"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@lst.de> wrote:

> On Fri, May 04, 2018@01:28:41PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > Allow the setting of an IEEE Extended Unique Identifier (EUI64) for
> > each namespace. As the OUI is per subsystem ensure that the OUI
> > part of the EUI64 value (ie the top 3 bytes) are matching for each
> > namespace.  
> 
> I don't think we should support the EUI64 value.  It doesn't have
> a lot of uniqueness, and it requires and IEEE OID to be properly
> implemented.  Please use the UUID identifier always, unless you
> actually doe havean IEEE OID and really want to use it, in which case
> you should use the NGUID.
> 

It's not so much about usability, it's about choice.
Some users might want to set an EUI64; companies (like ours) have
a valid OUI, so generating an EUI64 is pretty simple.

And the patch itself is pretty simple, so where's the harm?

Cheers,

Hannes