[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] enclosure: add support for enclosure services
--- On Tue, 2/5/08, James Bottomley <> wrote:
> > > Wrong ... we don't export non-SCSI devices as
> > > (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

See last paragraph.

> 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 ...

The vendor would've abstracted that away most commonly
using SES.

> > 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.

You missed my point. Your abstraction is redundant and
arbitrary -- it is not based on any known, in-practice,
usage model, already in place that needs a better, common
way of doing XYZ, and therefore needs an abstraction.


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-02-05 21:49    [W:0.078 / U:0.784 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site