linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] libata: rewrite SCSI host scheme to be one per ATA host

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:09:09 -0400
From:	Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: rewrite SCSI host scheme to be one per ATA host

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Currently, libata creates a Scsi_Host per port.  This was originally
> done to leverage SCSI's infrastructure to arbitrate among master/slave
> devices, but is not needed for most modern SATA controllers.   And I
> _think_ it is not needed for master/slave if done properly, either.
> 
> The patch below converts libata such that there is now a 1:1
> correspondence between struct Scsi_Host and struct ata_host.  ATA ports
> are represented as SCSI layer 'channels', which is more natural.
> 
> This patch is an experiment, and not meant for upstream anytime soon.
..

Could you perhaps explain how error handling would behave in this scheme?

Currently, one SATA port can have failures without any impact whatsoever
on concurrent operation of other ports, in part because each port is treated
as a completely independent SCSI host.

I wonder if that changes with the new (better) scheme proposed here?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/