[EXT] Re: [RFC] qla2xxx: Add dev_loss_tmo kernel module options

[James Smart]

On 4/20/2021 5:25 PM, Arun Easi wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2021, 11:28am, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Hi Roman,
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 08:35:10PM +0300, Roman Bolshakov wrote:
>>> + James S.
>>>
>>> Daniel, WRT to your patch I don't think we should add one more approach
>>> to set dev_loss_tmo via kernel module parameter as NVMe adopters are
>>> going to be even more confused about the parameter. Just imagine
>>> knowledge bases populated with all sorts of the workarounds, that apply
>>> to kernel version x, y, z, etc :)
>>
>> Totally agree. I consider this patch just a hack and way to get the
>> discussion going, hence the RFC :) Well, maybe we are going to add it
>> downstream in our kernels until we have a better way for setting the
>> dev_loss_tmo.
>>
>> As explained the debugfs interface is not working (okay, that's
>> something which could be fixed) and it has the big problem that it is
>> not under control by udevd. Not sure if we with some new udev rules the
>> debugfs could automatically discovered or not.
> 
> Curious, which udev script does this today for FC SCSI?
> 
> In theory, the exsting fc nvmediscovery udev event has enough information
> to find out the right qla2xxx debugfs node and set dev_loss_tmo.
> 
>>
>>> What exists for FCP/SCSI is quite clear and reasonable. I don't know why
>>> FC-NVMe rports should be way too different.
>>
>> The lpfc driver does expose the FCP/SCSI and the FC-NVMe rports nicely
>> via the fc_remote_ports and this is what I would like to have from the
>> qla2xxx driver as well. qla2xxx exposes the FCP/SCSI rports but not the
>> FC-NVMe rports.
>>
> 
> Given that FC NVME does not have sysfs hierarchy like FC SCSI, I see
> utility in making FC-NVME ports available via fc_remote_ports. If, though,
> a FC target port is dual protocol aware this would leave with only one
> knob to control both.
> 
> I think, going with fc_remote_ports is better than introducing one more
> way (like this patch) to set this.
> 
> Regards,
> -Arun

Thanks Arun,

I think we're all better off if the qla exports the nvme nodes via the 
scsi-side fc_remote_ports.  In the end - we will commonize a fc 
transport that then sits above scsi and nvme and will definitely be 
compatible with what's there. The registration with scsi was rather 
straight-forward for lpfc, so I assume it will be for qla as well and 
the devloss interface, although kludegy to have the driver propagate the 
scsi callback to nvme, also isn't much.

I also don't think we want to keep creating new mgmt points. it's 
already ugly enough.

-- james