Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 462957
[LTC 6.0 FEAT] 201598:FCP - HBA API followup for upstream
Last modified: 2010-11-10 15:12:56 EST
Emily J. Ratliff <firstname.lastname@example.org> - 2008-09-16 18:20 EDT
1. Feature Overview:
Feature Id: 
a. Name of Feature: FCP - HBA API followup for upstream
b. Feature Description
This item comprises a rework of the existing HBA API library and kernel functions such that:
a) The new library fits into the common libHBAAPI approach as a vendor specific library
b) The kernel functions are reworked to allow easier integration into upstream kernels.
2. Feature Details:
Arch Specificity: Both
Affects Kernel Modules: Yes
Delivery Mechanism: Direct from community
Request Type: Kernel - Enhancement from Upstream
d. Upstream Acceptance: Accepted
Sponsor Priority 1
f. Severity: High
IBM Confidential: no
Code Contribution: IBM code
g. Component Version Target: lib-zfcp-hbaapi-2.0
3. Business Case
Enablement of system management applications to use zFCP infrastructure. The result is improved
usability of the zFCP infrastructure.
4. Primary contact at Red Hat:
5. Primary contacts at Partner:
Project Management Contact:
Hans-Georg Markgraf, email@example.com, Boeblingen 49-7031-16-3978
Gonzalo Muelas Serrano, firstname.lastname@example.org
Thomas Schwarz, email@example.com
Do you have a pointer to the code?
(In reply to comment #6)
> Do you have a pointer to the code?
package from upstream, no code to attach to feature BZ
match up with the sourcefroge hbaapi wrapper and the linux hbaapi lib here:
We have requests to add these to fedora 11/RHEL6 already. Here are the fedora11 requests:
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 firstname.lastname@example.org 2009-03-19 04:31 EDT-------
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.
2. The so called vendor library, which is the actual implementation.
That's the one the open-fc guys requested in the second bugzilla.
Our library is a vendor library just like in 2.
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 email@example.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.