[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: CD writing in future Linux (stirring up a hornets' nest)
    Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <> wrote:

    > Joerg, I don't see any sense in providing users with fake SCSI
    > lun and bus numbers for ATAPI devices. I think that what users
    > would like is the list of devices consisting of "fd" and actual vendor
    > name of device (+ optionally serial no + optionally "x:y:z" for real
    > SCSI). Nobody wants to see some artificial "x:y:z" for her/his
    > ATAPI device (it has always annoyed me in Windows), not to say
    > that the majority of desktop users have absolutely no idea of meaning
    > of these numbers.

    This is called integration and it is done by Linux e.g. for 1394 and USB SCSI
    devices. So why not for ATAPI?

    > * ide-* drivers for ATAPI devices are needed (some devices just doesn't
    > work with ide-scsi ATM) so please accept this fact that we cannot just
    > now simply switch over everything to using ide-scsi and we have to use
    > SG_IO ioctl for ide-cd (and ide-{floppy,tape} if anybody cares to add
    > support for it). I'm not saying this won't change in future but this requires
    > doing actual work and people seem to be more interested in discussing
    > stupid naming issues than doing it so...

    Well, the problem with ide-scsi is not a general one but caused by a simple
    bug that needs to be fixed.

    > > So why do people try to convince me that there is a need to avoid the standard
    > > SCSI protocol stack because a PC might have only ATAPI?
    > SCSI protocol stack is far too Parallel SCSI centric (vide SAS flamewar).
    > Once again this is Linux problem which will get fixed with time or will fix
    > itself if we switch to libata for PATA.

    If this is true for Linux, it should be fixed. But this is not a general

    > > Major OS implementations use a unique view on SCSI (MS-win [*], FreeBSD, Solaris,
    > > ...). Why do people believe that Linux needs to be different? What does it buy
    > > you to go this way?
    > Linux needs to be better, no? ;-)

    In case that Linux would offer better methods, I would not complain.

    > > If the Linux folks could give technical based explanations for the questions
    > > from above and if they would create a new completely orthogonal view on SCSI [*]
    > > I had no problem. But up to now, the only answer was: "We do it this
    > > way because we do it this way".
    > The answer is - we do this this way because of historical reasons and we
    > simply lack resources to change it immediately (be it your "everything is
    > SCSI" or mine "block layer devices claiming supported transport types").

    This is obviously not true: There _was_ (and still is) a useful implementation
    with minor bugs. But instead of fixing the minor bugs, a lot of work has been
    done to introduce a new and unneded new interface.


    -- (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin (uni) (work) Blog:
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-01-31 14:38    [W:0.023 / U:221.080 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site