lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Larger dev_t


On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > layer made it impossible for a driver writer to be nice to the user, so
> > instead they got their own major numbers.
>
> Not deficiencies in the SCSI layer, there is no way the scsi layer can
> handle high end raid controllers. In fact one of the reasons we can beat
> NT with some of these controllers is because NT does exactly what you
> suggest with scsi miniport driver hacks and it _sucks_. Its an ugly hack.

We could do this fairly _trivially_ today.

With absolutely no performance degradation.

With a simple "queue" mapping for the SCSI majors. Just look up which
queue to use for requests to which major, and you're done. The actual
IO may by-pass the SCSI layer altogether.

So I'm absolutely not advocating using the SCSI layer for the
high-end-disks. Rather the reverse. I'm advocating the SCSI layer not
hogging a major number, but letting low-level drivers get at _their_
requests directly.

Linus

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:17    [W:0.185 / U:6.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site