Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 9 Aug 2004 12:13:26 +0200 (CEST) | From | Joerg Schilling <> | Subject | Re: PATCH: cdrecord: avoiding scsi device numbering for ide devices |
| |
>From axboe@suse.de Fri Aug 6 17:10:35 2004
>> Let me give you a short answer: If DMA creates so many problem on Linux, >> how about imlementing a generic DMA abstraction layer like Solaris does?
>We do have that. But suddenly changing the alignment and length >restrictions on issuing dma to a device in the _end_ of a stable series >does not exactly fill me with joyful expectations. It's simply that, >not lack of infrastructure.
If you _really_ _had_ a DMA abstraction layer, then ide-scsi would use DMA for all sector sizes a CD may have. The fact that ide-scsi does not use DMA easily proves that you are wrong.
>> Please try to distinct between threads I did start and threads I have >> been drawn into. I am open to any serious discussion, however if you >> like to insist in things that have been agreed on being suboptimal for >> more than 20 years, you should have very good reasons _and_ be willing >> to explain them.
>Agreed between whom? I don't agree that this naming is sound, in fact I >think it's quite stupid.
If you like to call the Sun developers and the FreeBSD developers (which means people like Bill Joy and Scott Mcusick) stupid, you seem to have a real strange idea from the world :-(
AGAIN: if you believe you did invent a better method, _describe_ it. As you did not describe a _working_ method different from the one I request, you need to agree that you are wrong - as long as your description is missing.
>I am focused on Linux, that's what I work on. And I truly think the >device naming option is so much easier for users that it's not even >funny.
So let me use other words: While I am focussed on the cdrtools uses on _all_ platforms, you are not :-(
>> As 50% of all problems reported for cdrecord on Linux look like Linux >> kernel problems, this is what I do every day.
>Just because they look like Linux kernel problems, doesn't mean that >they are :-)
I am able to distinct between something that only looks like a kernel problem and something that really is a kernel problem. As long as you define everything to be a non kernel problem :-( see the Linux Kernel bug with SG_SET_RESERVED_SIZE) I don't know how to continue the discussion with you.
>A textual description of the problem is not a fix. Or did I miss the >patch? If so, I apologize.
Being able to read seems to be a real advantage....
>> The importance could be limited if there were unique instance numbers >> for ATAPI devices using the same address space as the other SCSI >> devices. For now, ide-scsi is really important.
>It's not the same address space, so there is not.
Well you just did prove that forcing people to send SCSI commands via non SCSI parts of the kernel is a design bug
>> Let's see whether "Linux" is open enough to listen to the demands of >> the users......
>We try, when they make sense...
You should learn what "make sense" means, Linux-2.6 is a clear move away from the demands of a Linux user who likes to write CDs/DVDs.
Jörg
-- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily - 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/
| |