[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZK1Ei0hHlbQE/bI8@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 05:01:15 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: "Andreas Hindborg (Samsung)" <nmi@...aspace.dk>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:BLOCK LAYER" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
Minwoo Im <minwoo.im.dev@...il.com>,
Matias Bjorling <Matias.Bjorling@....com>,
gost.dev@...sung.com, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Aravind Ramesh <Aravind.Ramesh@....com>,
Johannes Thumshirn <jth@...nel.org>,
Hans Holmberg <Hans.Holmberg@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] ublk: add opcode offsets for DRV_IN/DRV_OUT
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 12:15:18PM +0200, Andreas Hindborg (Samsung) wrote:
> And yet they are somewhat similar, in the sense that they allow the user
> of a protocol to express semantics that is not captured in the
> established protocol. Uring command passthrough -> request passthrough
> -> vendor specific commands. They sort of map well in terms of what they
> allow the user to achieve. Or did I misunderstand something completely?
Well, there is a relationship, but it's one way.
Vendor specific command are basically always going to be used through
a passthrough interface, because they aren't standardized.
But most commands used through a passthrough interface are normal
standardized commands, just either used in a way not supported by
the normal Linux interface or just in creative ways.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists