Luben Tuikov wrote:
On 09/01/05 17:46, Jeff Garzik wrote:
libata is simply being lazy: while the SCSI core continues to support
kicking the EH thread when sense is missing, it's preferred for libata
to reuse that infrastructure.
That makes the most sense ;-)
For libata it doesn't really matter, since it is _ATA_.
It matters quite a bit. One of the main reasons libata uses the SCSI
layer is for its infrastructure.
Hmm, maybe I should've been more clear.
This is the same reason a couple RAID drivers use the SCSI layer. It
has nothing to do with SCSI-as-defined-by-T10, and more to do with the
fact that SCSI provides a robust queueing/EH/block interface infrastructure.
You must be kidding! "robust"? What are you comparing this to?
I think it's only because "it's there" and that it provides
a uniform access -- provided by SCSI, _not_ by that particular
SCSI implementation.
You're correct in one sense, but I still don't think you understand
Linux development at a fundamental level.
Linux is NOT about big designs. Linus says "do what you must, and no
more." Linux is a fluid, organic biological organism that evolves
through small changes over time.
So, yes, the reason is "it's there" And that's a really good reason!
The future will bring other "baby steps" that evolve us towards a more
modular design where each LLD may register themselves with a storage
system, associate themselves with one or more transport classes, which
in turn create associations with device classes.
My long term plans include moving some of this not-SCSI-related
infrastructure from the SCSI layer to the block layer.
Which is that infrastructure?
Queueing, EH, transport classes (which should already be independent of
SCSI), maybe driver API, and other fun stuff. :)
Jeff
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
