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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
