Bug 462957
Summary: | [LTC 6.0 FEAT] 201598:FCP - HBA API followup for upstream | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 | Reporter: | IBM Bug Proxy <bugproxy> |
Component: | distribution | Assignee: | Jan Zeleny <jzeleny> |
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Ben Levenson <benl> |
Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | high | ||
Version: | 6.0 | CC: | atodorov, ejratl, jzeleny, ltroan, mchristi, notting, snagar, syeghiay, tao |
Target Milestone: | alpha | Keywords: | FutureFeature |
Target Release: | 6.0 | ||
Hardware: | s390x | ||
OS: | All | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | libhbaapi-2.2-8.el6 | Doc Type: | Enhancement |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2010-11-10 20:12:56 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 356741, 425967, 554559 |
Description
IBM Bug Proxy
2008-09-19 21:50:48 UTC
Do you have a pointer to the code? (In reply to comment #6) > Do you have a pointer to the code? > Yes: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/linux390/zfcp-hbaapi-2.0.html package from upstream, no code to attach to feature BZ IBM, How does http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/linux390/zfcp-hbaapi-2.0.html match up with the sourcefroge hbaapi wrapper and the linux hbaapi lib here: http://www.open-fc.org/openfc/gitweb/?p=openfc/libhbalinux.git;a=summary We have requests to add these to fedora 11/RHEL6 already. Here are the fedora11 requests: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489929 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489962 It looks like http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/linux390/zfcp-hbaapi-2.0.html has a different hbaapi.h. Did you guys do that because you had issues in the past with the sourceforge one or is it just the same file but cleaned up? Will http://www.open-fc.org/openfc/gitweb/?p=openfc/libhbalinux.git;a=summary work for you guys? It is supposed to be a common linux lib when it is done. Does your lib have advantages or disadvantages? Adding Jan Zeleny because they are handling the packages referenced in comment #4. ------- Comment From sven.schuetz.com 2009-03-19 04:31 EDT------- Hi, to your questions. HBA API consists of two parts: 1.The "wrapper" or "common" library. That is the one from http://sourceforge.net/projects/hbaapi which is requested in the first bugzilla. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489929 2. The so called vendor library, which is the actual implementation. That's the one the open-fc guys requested in the second bugzilla. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489962 Our library is a vendor library just like in 2. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/linux390/zfcp-hbaapi-2.0.html It just contains a version of hbaapi.h in case the wrapper/common library is not present. During the configure stage you can chose if the wrapper is present (hbaapi.h from our package is not needed) or if the wrapper is not present (hbaapi.h from our package will be needed). For your question if the open-fc approach will work for us: In theory or in the future, yes. Today, no. If everything would be perfect, we could use one approach where we have one library which uses standard interfaces. Today, both the open-fc and our approach are to a little extend platform specific. They use some PCI libraries to get certain information which are not available on System z. We use some system z specifics which are not present on other platforms. The functionality both libraries offer is the roughly the same. My suggestion would be: As the wrapper library is designed to have multiple vendor libraries living together on one system, let's include both - the wrapper library and both of the vendor libraries - theirs and ours. They can coexist nicely. For future releases we should try to merge our approaches so that we only have one vendor library left (that would mean to eliminate platform specifics in the current approaches). I will get in contact with the open-fc guys to bring that forward. *** Bug 468256 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** HBA API has been included in Fedora 11 and 12, should be present in RHEL6 beta. Changing status to MODIFIED. Fixed in 'libhbaapi-2.2-8.el6', included in compose 'RHEL6.0-20091028.0'. Moving to ON_QA. ------- Comment From mgrf.com 2010-06-17 16:50 EDT------- This feature is verified on R6 snapshots Set feature to "verified" Thx Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.0 is now available and should resolve the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of CURRENTRELEASE. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. |