Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:22:36 -0500 | From | James Smart <> | 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
| |