Hi Mike,
Herein attached patches for having dhcp provisioning support in cxgb3i.
I have added one new iscsi netlink message ISCSI_UEVENT_REQ_IPCONF.
Please have a look and share suggestions.
Regards
Rakesh Ranjan
On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 18:46 +0530, Rakesh Ranjan wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> Herein attached patches for having dhcp provisioning support in
> cxgb3i.
> I have added one new iscsi netlink message ISCSI_UEVENT_REQ_IPCONF.
> Please have a look and share suggestions.
[...]
Why does cxgb3i need its very own DHCP client? This seems like
something that's generically useful to firmware-based iSCSI adapters.
(It would be better still if this could be left to user-space, but
although a user-space program could send out requests on the net device
using the iSCSI device's MAC address, I don't see how it would get
replies.)
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
Rakesh Ranjan wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> Herein attached patches for having dhcp provisioning support in cxgb3i.
> I have added one new iscsi netlink message ISCSI_UEVENT_REQ_IPCONF.
Is the idea to have iscsid/uip send down this msg?
Was it not possible to hook in more like how bnx2i does dhcp?
Mike Christie wrote:
> Rakesh Ranjan wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> Herein attached patches for having dhcp provisioning support in
>> cxgb3i. I have added one new iscsi netlink message
>> ISCSI_UEVENT_REQ_IPCONF.
>
> Is the idea to have iscsid/uip send down this msg?
>
> Was it not possible to hook in more like how bnx2i does dhcp?
yep, idea is to have iscsid send down ISCSI_UEVENT_REQ_IPCONF msg. bnx2i
approach in our case for at least T3 is not feasible.
Regards
Rakesh Ranjan
Rakesh Ranjan wrote:
> Mike Christie wrote:
>> Rakesh Ranjan wrote:
>>> Hi Mike,
>>>
>>> Herein attached patches for having dhcp provisioning support in
>>> cxgb3i. I have added one new iscsi netlink message
>>> ISCSI_UEVENT_REQ_IPCONF.
>>
>> Is the idea to have iscsid/uip send down this msg?
>>
>> Was it not possible to hook in more like how bnx2i does dhcp?
>
> yep, idea is to have iscsid send down ISCSI_UEVENT_REQ_IPCONF msg. bnx2i
> approach in our case for at least T3 is not feasible.
>
I think adding DHCP in the kernel is getting a little crazy :) If we go
down this path, I agree with the other person that stated it should at
least be generic.
Mike Christie wrote:
> Rakesh Ranjan wrote:
>> Mike Christie wrote:
>>> Rakesh Ranjan wrote:
>>>> Hi Mike,
>>>>
>>>> Herein attached patches for having dhcp provisioning support in
>>>> cxgb3i. I have added one new iscsi netlink message
>>>> ISCSI_UEVENT_REQ_IPCONF.
>>>
>>> Is the idea to have iscsid/uip send down this msg?
>>>
>>> Was it not possible to hook in more like how bnx2i does dhcp?
>>
>> yep, idea is to have iscsid send down ISCSI_UEVENT_REQ_IPCONF msg.
>> bnx2i approach in our case for at least T3 is not feasible.
>>
>
> I think adding DHCP in the kernel is getting a little crazy :) If we go
> down this path, I agree with the other person that stated it should at
> least be generic.
Hi Mike,
What do you mean be generic ? Do you want to have a generic interface
for DHCP handler that could be part of libiscsi and could be used by
other LLD's.
Regards
Rakesh Ranjan
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:54:07 +0530
Rakesh Ranjan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mike Christie wrote:
> > Rakesh Ranjan wrote:
> >> Mike Christie wrote:
> >>> Rakesh Ranjan wrote:
> >>>> Hi Mike,
> >>>>
> >>>> Herein attached patches for having dhcp provisioning support in
> >>>> cxgb3i. I have added one new iscsi netlink message
> >>>> ISCSI_UEVENT_REQ_IPCONF.
> >>>
> >>> Is the idea to have iscsid/uip send down this msg?
> >>>
> >>> Was it not possible to hook in more like how bnx2i does dhcp?
> >>
> >> yep, idea is to have iscsid send down ISCSI_UEVENT_REQ_IPCONF msg.
> >> bnx2i approach in our case for at least T3 is not feasible.
> >>
> >
> > I think adding DHCP in the kernel is getting a little crazy :) If we go
> > down this path, I agree with the other person that stated it should at
> > least be generic.
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> What do you mean be generic ? Do you want to have a generic interface
> for DHCP handler that could be part of libiscsi and could be used by
> other LLD's.
Is there anyway to make existing code (in net/ipv4/ipconfig.c) more generic
and useful for both?