linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] enclosure: add support for enclosure services

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <47B3194C.7070809@emulex.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:22:36 -0500
From:	James Smart <James.Smart@...lex.Com>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
CC:	ltuikov@...oo.com,
	Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen.c.accardi@...el.com>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-ide <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>, jeff@...zik.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] enclosure: add support for enclosure services

James Bottomley wrote:
> I don't disagree with that, but the fact is that there isn't such a
> tool.   It's also a fact that the enterprise is reasonably unhappy with
> the lack of an enclosure management infrastructure, since it's something
> they got on all the other unix systems.

I don't disagree.

> I think a minimal infrastructure in-kernel does just about everything
> the enterprise wants ... and since it's stateless, they can always use
> direct connect tools in addition.
> 
> However, I'm happy to be proven wrong ... anyone on this thread is
> welcome to come up with a userland enclosure infrastructure.  Once it
> does everything the in-kernel one does (which is really about the
> minimal possible set), I'll be glad to erase the in-kernel one.

yeah, but...  putting something new in, only to pull it later, is a bad
paradigm for adding new mgmt interfaces. Believe me, I've felt users pain in
the reverse flow : driver-specific stuff that then has to migrate to upstream
interfaces, complicated by different pull points by different distros. You can
migrate a management interface, but can you really remove/pull one out ?

Isn't it better to let the lack of an interface give motivation to create
the "right" interface, once the "right way" is determined - which is what I
thought we were discussing ?    or is this simply that there is no motivation
until something exists, that people don't like, thus they become motivated ?

-- james s
--
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/