Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:04:07 -0700
From:      Jim Harris <jim.harris@gmail.com>
To:        Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>
Cc:        Chuck Tuffli <chuck@tuffli.net>, freebsd-scsi <freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: [RFC] CAM pass(4) patch for NVMe
Message-ID:  <CAJP=Hc-nZSPw=XuG-EFkA8KePN_BPJyGtacorJXHxUBghpmuaQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfqJaQ_cAedek5KefyAsQ%2BAn0KUA18_LXtK6z8n13kW5zA@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CAM0tzX2b1NU=y1Vr=XeU63D5=3FJVHPD9e9fLSFaNvQhLtQa=A@mail.gmail.com> <CANCZdfoTroqgvtwW8fJyquf063cJfdriUfyOqNOy=rx8wM=Qsg@mail.gmail.com> <CAM0tzX0r3VrypNqW0D%2BQRJPO62ogKo1_o3eNg%2BKAYa=yBRMEKQ@mail.gmail.com> <CANCZdfqtH8AQ=JW8OMYk5VGHTJk6Brchm6OUv9_=ROaD7ZbqfA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM0tzX0paPg9Bg3KJCLLy9kO7v8UzKs%2BigHaOy68Hkgvv9OuOw@mail.gmail.com> <CANCZdfqJaQ_cAedek5KefyAsQ%2BAn0KUA18_LXtK6z8n13kW5zA@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Chuck Tuffli <chuck@tuffli.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>> Fair Enough. I'd thought 0xffff was the magic number :). However, you
>>> raise a good point.
>>>
>>> Grep tells me all the xflags are actually unused. So we could use it,
>>> but after chatting with Scott Long, I'm not sure that we should.
>>>
>>> However, I think Jim's idea of having a separate command for commands
>>> for the I/O queue and commands for the admin queue might be the better
>>> part of valor here. I'd initially read Jim's mail as use #defines for
>>> the xflags values, but that's not at all what he was saying.
>>>
>>> The code change would be a bit bigger, but not by a lot. It's super
>>> easy to add new XPT_ function code.
>>
>> OK, I'll head down that path and add a new XPT opcode XPT_NVME_ADMIN
>> and helper macro cam_fill_nvmeadmin() which would be used for Admin
>> commands. The existing XPT_NVME_IO would be used for NVM/IO commands.
>> Both opcodes would use the ccb_nvmeio structure unless there are
>> objections .... ?
>
> Seems reasonable to me.

Me too.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJP=Hc-nZSPw=XuG-EFkA8KePN_BPJyGtacorJXHxUBghpmuaQ>