--- On Tue, 2/5/08, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
quoted text
> > > Wrong ... we don't export non-SCSI devices as
> SCSI
> > > (with the single and
> > > rather annoying exception of ATA via SAT).
> > 
> > I didn't say you should do that.  I had already
> > mentioned that vendors export such controls
> > as either enclosure or processor type devices,
> > and this is why I told you that that is what
> > needs to be exported, which incidentally is
> > a device node of that type.
> > 
> > Without a common usage model already in the kernel
> > to abstract (e.g. sd for block device, since you
> brought
> > that up) your abstraction seems redundant and
> arbitrary.
> 
> Exactly, so the first patch in this series (a while ago
^^^^^^^^^^^

See last paragraph.

quoted text
> now) was a
> common usage model abstraction of enclosures, and the
> second was an
> implementation in terms of SES.   I will do one in terms of
> SGPIO as
> well ... assuming I ever find a SGPIO enclosure ...

The vendor would've abstracted that away most commonly
using SES.

quoted text
> 
> > Your kernel code already uses READ DIAGNOSTIC, etc,
> > and I'd rather leave that to user-space.
> 
> You can do it in user space as well.  It's just a bit
> difficult to get
> information out of a SES enclosure without using it, and
> getting some of
> the information is a requirement of the abstraction.

You missed my point.  Your abstraction is redundant and
arbitrary -- it is not based on any known, in-practice,
usage model, already in place that needs a better, common
way of doing XYZ, and therefore needs an abstraction.

   Luben

--
unsubscribe notice
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/