On 10/21/05 17:41, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>>I already described why. Examples are DMA boundary and s/g limit, among
>>>others. When confronted with this, you proposed an additional hardware
>>>information struct which duplicates Scsi_Host_Template.
>>
>>
>>I told you -- I have this in the struct asd_ha_struct and it was merely
>>a downplay that I didn't include the same thing in struct sas_ha_struct.
Here is the commit in question:
http://linux.adaptec.com/sas/git/?p=linux-2.6-sas.git;a=commit;h=785747ddc631f7618d728a377346965f7db2256a
>>>Solution? Just use Scsi_Host_Template. Take a look at how each libata
>>
>>
>>No, this is the solution which would turn everything upside down.
>>The easiest and smallest solution is to just include this tiny struct
>>and end this. It would have 0 impact on code. In fact I'll
>>implement it now and push it to the git tree. ;-)
>>
>>The host template _mixes_ hw, scsi core, and protocol knowlege into
>>one ugly blob.
>
>
> True.
>
> If you do not like the current situation, evolve the SCSI core (and all
> drivers) to where you think they should be.
While the architecture in my mind is clear, I cannot do this myself
(and for all drivers). Such a change would be gradual, involving more
than one developer, for more than one (new) driver, etc.
First we need SDI to make everyone happy. This way HP/LSI/Adaptec
can move quickest to the customers with minimal pain to the customers
and to the companies which would have to change software (minimal change).
> Thus, regardless of whether or not libata-scsi meets the needs of
> SAS+SATA hardware, libata-scsi is where all SCSI<->ATA translation
> should occur. If you are dissatisfied, evolve the code to where it
> needs to be.
Ok.
> Naming is completely irrelevant. Just modify the code.
Ok.
Luben
--
http://linux.adaptec.com/sas/
http://www.adaptec.com/sas/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- ioctls, etc. (was Re: [PATCH 1/4] sas: add flag for locally attached PHYs)
- Re: ioctls, etc. (was Re: [PATCH 1/4] sas: add flag for locally attached PHYs)
- Re: ioctls, etc. (was Re: [PATCH 1/4] sas: add flag for locally attached PHYs)
- Re: ioctls, etc. (was Re: [PATCH 1/4] sas: add flag for locally attached PHYs)
- Re: ioctls, etc. (was Re: [PATCH 1/4] sas: add flag for locally attached PHYs)
- Re: ioctls, etc. (was Re: [PATCH 1/4] sas: add flag for locally attached PHYs)
- Re: ioctls, etc. (was Re: [PATCH 1/4] sas: add flag for locally attached PHYs)
- Re: ioctls, etc. (was Re: [PATCH 1/4] sas: add flag for locally attached PHYs)
- Re: ioctls, etc. (was Re: [PATCH 1/4] sas: add flag for locally attached PHYs)
- Re: ioctls, etc. (was Re: [PATCH 1/4] sas: add flag for locally attached PHYs)
- Re: ioctls, etc. (was Re: [PATCH 1/4] sas: add flag for locally attached PHYs)
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]