On 09/28/05 15:45, Andre Hedrick wrote: > Hi Patrick, > > You have hit on one of the key word of my downfall. > > Specifications!!! > > I believe in them and they are the inflexable state machine which all OSes > are required to address. Me too. I live and breathe by them. > I am for following the rules of the spec, and will bet Linus would now > agree more so than before. Me too. An interesting thing which "the community" would appreciate is that M$ has aggressively started to "go by the spec" as far as SCSI is concerned. Ding-ding! > The problem is SCSI is a strange beast without > a formal FSM. It is more of a BusPhase psuedo stated transport. It is Oh, no, no, no! So much has changed Andre. Just take a look at SAM, and I'm sure that you'll appreciate the object oriented design, the abstractions, etc. Really! Recently all new protocols follow _explicit_ state machine definitions at each layer they define, and how it interacts with the layer above and below again by FSMs. It's all a good thing. > Luben, I have a vested interest in seeing SAS run via SCSI. So this means > you have one ex-demi-god from the world of maintainers looking to pull you > have towards the current path and open to ideas and willing to back a > better design and push it. Ok, thanks Andre. Much appreciated. You are the first person to back me up _publicly_. Now if we can find a person from "the community" to do that, and get all the other people who've written me _privately_, we'd be in good shape. Luben P.S. Not sure if you have seen this link: http://linux.adaptec.com/sas/ - : 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
