On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 09:45 -0800, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote: > I don't think I'm arguing whether or not your solution may work, what I > am arguing is really a more philosophical point. Not "can we do it > this way", but "should we do it way". I am of the opinion that > management belongs in userspace. I also am of the opinion that if you > can successfully accomplish something in user space, you should. I > also believe that even if you provide this basic interface, all system > vendors are going to provide libraries on top of that to customize it, > so you've not added much value to just a simple message passing > interface. I'm not necessarily arguing against that. However, what you're providing is slightly more than just a userspace tap into the enclosure. You're adding a file to display and control the enclosure state (sw_activity). This constitutes an ad-hoc sysfs interface. I'm not telling you not to do it, but I am pleading that if we have to have all these sysfs interfaces, lets at least do it in a uniform way. Enclosures are such nasty beasts, that even the job of getting a tap into them is problematic, so if we have a different tap infrastructure for every different enclosure type and connection it's still going to be pretty unmanageable to a userspace interface. > So, I'm happy to defer to Jeff's judgement call here - I just want to > do what's right for our customers and get an enclosure management > interface for SATA exposed, preferrably in time for the 2.6.26 merge > window. If he prefers your design, I'll disagree, but commit to his > decision and try to get this to work for SATA. If he'd rather see > something along the lines of what I proposed, then since it is 100% self > contained in the SATA subsystem, it shouldn't impact whatever you > want to do in the SCSI subsystem. James - 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
