On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 00:09 +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: OK, look, guys, could we stop this argument? It's becoming a bit old. For the record, I was unhappy to have libata pata in SCSI, but it got moved into drivers/ata shortly after, limiting my influence. I thought having a slow wind down of legacy pata in drivers/ide but moving to libata for sata was the correct split. I agree with Jeff that the SCSI layer did provide unique features that SATA/NCQ needed at the time ... but I also think we need to move them into block sooner rather than later. I'm the last person ever to proscribe a kernel subsystem that has willing volunteers, so drivers/ide is yours as long as you want to maintain it. I can certainly see the merits of a thinner stack to the embedded world, and not a few embedded developers seem to agree. As far as moving it out of SCSI goes, I've always been a supporter of this. Tejun looks like he's willing to execute, so I feel much more sanguine that it will happen. The point of the notes was really to draw attention to something I hadn't realised: we can't refactor block to get libata out of SCSI without also changing drivers/ide, which does make the problem harder. On a final note about the urgency of getting libata out of SCSI: Intel has been worrying for a while about the fatness of the SCSI/libata stack, and its effects on performance, especially command transmission via SAT, so I'm hoping they'll be supporting the effort. Jmaes -- 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
