lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans