Re: RFC: ACPI/scsi/libata integration and hotswap

[Erik Slagter <erik@slagter.name>]

On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 12:46 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09 2005, Erik Slagter wrote:
> > I case this (still) isn't clear, I am addressing the attitude of "It's
> > ACPI so it's not going to be used, period".
> 
> The problem seems to be that you are misunderstanding the 'attitude',
> which was mainly based on the initial patch sent out which stuffs acpi
> directly in everywhere. That seems to be a good trigger for curt/direct
> replies.

This is the post I object to:
[http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=113404894931377&w=2]

>> Ok. What's the right layer to do this? The current ACPI/anything
>> else glue depends on specific knowledge about the bus concerned, and
>> needs callbacks registered before devices are added to that bus.
>> Doing it in the sata layer would have the potential for unhappiness
>> on mixed sata/scsi machines.

> Don't do it at all.  We don't need to fuck up every layer and driver for
> intels braindamage.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature