Re: [PATCH v2] nvme-fc: don't require user to enter host_traddr

2017-12-01 Thread James Smart
On 12/1/2017 12:34 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: James Smart writes: On 11/30/2017 7:12 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: One major usability difference between NVMf RDMA and FC is resolving the default host transport address in RDMA. This is perfectly doable in FC as well, as we already have all

Re: [PATCH v2] nvme-fc: don't require user to enter host_traddr

2017-12-01 Thread Johannes Thumshirn
James Smart writes: > On 11/30/2017 7:12 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: >> One major usability difference between NVMf RDMA and FC is resolving >> the default host transport address in RDMA. This is perfectly doable >> in FC as well, as we already have all possible lport <-> rport >> combinations

Re: [PATCH v2] nvme-fc: don't require user to enter host_traddr

2017-11-30 Thread James Smart
On 11/30/2017 7:12 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: One major usability difference between NVMf RDMA and FC is resolving the default host transport address in RDMA. This is perfectly doable in FC as well, as we already have all possible lport <-> rport combinations pre-populated so we can pick the f

[PATCH v2] nvme-fc: don't require user to enter host_traddr

2017-11-30 Thread Johannes Thumshirn
One major usability difference between NVMf RDMA and FC is resolving the default host transport address in RDMA. This is perfectly doable in FC as well, as we already have all possible lport <-> rport combinations pre-populated so we can pick the first lport that has a connection to our desired rpo