[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [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

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-02-13 17:25    [W:0.035 / U:1.672 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site