On Tuesday, June 11, 2024 11:57 PM, Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx> wrote:Ah. Good to know. Ever more a reason to have your driver upstreamed, then...
On 6/10/24 23:50, Karan Tilak Kumar wrote:
Add interfaces in fnic to use FDLS services.This seems to not just _add_ the functionality to use FDLS, but rather _replace_ the existing
Modify link up and link down functionality to use FDLS.
Replace existing interfaces to handle new functionality provided by
FDLS.
Modify data types of some data members to handle new functionality.
Add processing of tports and handling of tports.
Reviewed-by: Sesidhar Baddela <sebaddel@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Arulprabhu Ponnusamy <arulponn@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Gian Carlo Boffa <gcboffa@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Karan Tilak Kumar <kartilak@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/scsi/fnic/fdls_disc.c | 74 +++++
drivers/scsi/fnic/fip.c | 27 +-
drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic.h | 20 +-
drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_fcs.c | 498 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_main.c | 10 +-
drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_scsi.c | 127 +++++++--
6 files changed, 587 insertions(+), 169 deletions(-)
functionality with FDLS.
IE it seems that after this change the driver will always do FDLS, causing a possible service
interruption with existing setups.
Hmm?
Thanks for your review comments, Hannes.
As I mentioned in the other patch comments, Cisco has been shipping an async driver based on FDLS
for the past six years.
The async driver is backward compatible and supports all the adapters that are supported by the
existing upstream driver, and more.
The async driver in fact overrides the upstream driver on our installations.
On Cisco hardware, the best practice out in the field, is to update the driver to the asyncAh. I wasn't aware of that.
driver during OS installation itself.
Due to this best practice, we have _not_ received any feedback from customers indicating an
abnormal service interruption specifically due to the driver update.