Re: iSCSI - change proposal LUN field definition on every PDU

["Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>]

Paul,

I would appreciate if you could expand on what your concern about the 
fastpath is.
And I would appreciate also you telling us what sufficient refers to.

As for NO (uppercase "n" and "o") I do not find it in any "common acronym" 
list so I assume it is a way (impolite) of saying "we should not consider" 
it.

Julo




Paul Koning <ni1d@arrl.net>
12-11-01 19:02
Please respond to Paul Koning

 
        To:     Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
        cc:     ips@ece.cmu.edu
        Subject:        Re: iSCSI - change proposal LUN field definition on every PDU

 

Excerpt of message (sent 12 November 2001) by Julian Satran:
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> A colleague interested in instrumentation approached me with a question 
> about stateless logging of specific LU activity.
> With the current iSCSI PDU formats this is not possible.
> We have consistently avoided having fields that are redundant and will 
> need consistency checking.
> However I think we should consider including the LU field in all PDUs 
that 
> are referencing a specific LU to simplify this type of instrumentation 
(as 
> we did with the direction bit in the op-code).

NO.

I can see no good reason to add work to an implementation fastpath for
this.  It slightly simplifies instrumentation, but instrumentation is
certainly possible without it.  That is sufficient.

       paul