[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1202243385.3133.82.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:29:45 -0600
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: ltuikov@...oo.com
Cc: linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-ide <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
"Accardi, Kristen C" <kristen.c.accardi@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] enclosure: add support for enclosure services
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 11:33 -0800, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> > Wrong ... we don't export non-SCSI devices as SCSI
> > (with the single and
> > rather annoying exception of ATA via SAT).
>
> I didn't say you should do that. I had already
> mentioned that vendors export such controls
> as either enclosure or processor type devices,
> and this is why I told you that that is what
> needs to be exported, which incidentally is
> a device node of that type.
>
> Without a common usage model already in the kernel
> to abstract (e.g. sd for block device, since you brought
> that up) your abstraction seems redundant and arbitrary.
Exactly, so the first patch in this series (a while ago now) was a
common usage model abstraction of enclosures, and the second was an
implementation in terms of SES. I will do one in terms of SGPIO as
well ... assuming I ever find a SGPIO enclosure ...
> Your kernel code already uses READ DIAGNOSTIC, etc,
> and I'd rather leave that to user-space.
You can do it in user space as well. It's just a bit difficult to get
information out of a SES enclosure without using it, and getting some of
the information is a requirement of the abstraction.
James
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists