On 09/29/05 12:54, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Luben Tuikov wrote: > >>of SAS. THE REASON THEY WERE INTRODUCED INTO LINUX BY JB IS TO >>ACCOMODATE MPT-based SOLUTIONS FROM TWIDDLING WITH IOCTLS! > > > Wrong. This shows you fundamentally don't understand transport classes > at all. > > AFAIK, the first transport class was FC, for qla2xxx. > > Read the code to see how FC avoids the SPI-centric scan -- an example of > transport independence. And it shows that you do not understand SAM. How do I know this: simple: JB's "transport attributes" have NOTHING to do with SAM. They break the layering architecture for one, and are ATTRIBUTE EXPORTING FACILITY for another. I understand that you want to preserve your friend's bal^w^w^wpride but, lets face it: I do not try to shove my solution down JB's throat. As I've said many times: they are different due to the *technology they represent*, which differs in implmentation, and they can coexist! If you can say this statement: "The core problem is that a SAM-friendly path to SAS has already been chosen -- transport classes -- and your driver isn't following this path." This means that you have NO CLUE ABOUT SAS or SAM! I certainly hope that things would improve once you start reading specs and talking to the engineers who designed BCM8603. (If you are still going to write their driver for them.) >>How do I know this: simple: JB's "transport attributes" have >>NOTHING to do with SAM. >> >>They break the layering architecture for one, and are >>ATTRIBUTE EXPORTING FACILITY for another. > > > Transport class == transport layer. Eventually this will sink in. > > Transport class allows for complete transport independence, be it SAS, > FC, iSCSI, or other. Nah -- all FUD. See how you're talking general stuff. See how I talk specifics: The host template was introduced to satisfy SPI only LLDD which was everything available at that time and SAM didn't exist yet. Over time it was enlarged to accomodate others and all LLDD implemented it and simulated SPI centric view. Now, you have a storage chip on a pci device which is NOT a host template material. I.e. the LLDD is a _PCI_ device driver, NOT SCSI! It exports only a SAM section 5, 6 and 7 view of the Service Delivery Subsystem and interconnect. It does _not_ export anything "scsi host" like. For this reason you _need_ a management layer on top, but _below_ SCSI Core, since that management layer is _transport_ specific _and_ SCSI Core should be completely _unaware_ of the transport! Then _this_ transport layer, presents things to the SCSI Core as "scsi host" material. Among the many, lets take for example this member of the struct scsi_host_template along with the comment: /* * In many instances, especially where disconnect / reconnect are * supported, our host also has an ID on the SCSI bus. If this is * the case, then it must be reserved. Please set this_id to -1 if * your setup is in single initiator mode, and the host lacks an * ID. */ int this_id; SPI-centric? How about this from scsi_host: /* * These three parameters can be used to allow for wide scsi, * and for host adapters that support multiple busses * The first two should be set to 1 more than the actual max id * or lun (i.e. 8 for normal systems). */ unsigned int max_id; unsigned int max_lun; unsigned int max_channel; And I can continue to give examples of this for as many lines are in the header files of Linux SCSI. Now Jeff will say: "Then submit patches to fix this." > I'm merely stating I'm submitting patches to clean up SCSI core. Others > have submitted far more patches than I. And further patches to SCSI I've also submitted patches to improve SCSI Core. Those improvements came directly from my own mini-SCSI Core implementation of iSCSI Target. For example, using the slab cache for scsi commands. Thanks to Doug L, and Andi K, they made it in, if it had been left to James Bottomley, they'd never be in. Then I continued to post RFCs and various other suggestions, like 64 bit LUN, elimination of HCIL -- all shot down by your friends in the community. This was back when you had just started working on libata. So please spare me the political sap -- I've tears in my eyes already. > core are needed to properly integrate SAS as a transport completely Stop this FUD man -- it integrates right now: http://linux.adaptec.com/sas/ > independent from SPI. I'm going to be putting time and effort into > moving the SCSI core away from SPI, so that SAS can be properly integrated. So you are going to give all currently existsing legacy LLDD a heart attack? Or are you going to create new functionality as I had outlined here: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=112794008820004&w=2 You know, "struct scsi_domain_device", proper LU scannint, etc. > All I've seen from you is > (a) complaints that the SCSI core is too SPI-centric I've been wanting to change this since 2003. I even wrote an email that I wanted to completely rewrite SCSI Core for 2.7 in 2003. See this email. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=104508658212335&w=2 Sadly as most discussions in linux-scsi nothing materializes, patches get dropped, etc, etc, et. > (b) a solution that does nothing to fix this But it gets you one step closed to it. It merges _cleanly_, people can use it get comfortable with it and eventually things else where would improve as people get comfortable with it. > My goal is Linux. Always has been. I put quality of Linux code, and > giving features to Linux users, above all else. Have been doing so > regardless of who employs me, for many years now. > > Maybe one day I will be independently wealthy, be a completely > independent Linux maintainer, and then people will have to find Jeff, if you think that if one day if you became independently wealthy you'd be an independent Linux maintainer, or do _any_ kind of work, you need to mature a bit more. I _guarantee_ you that in 5 years you'd think differently. Independently wealthy people start doing charity work and then they use that to get into politics, in order to obtain that which lacks from just having a ton of money: power. Luben > something other than Red Hat as the reason for why their code is > receiving criticism. > > > >>I doubt you've ever been honest with me.* The reason is that >>you are trying to push down my throat JB's "transport classes", >>all the while you're saying I'm supposed to change other people's >>code? > > > To get a fully SPI-independent SCSI core, we must change other people's > code. That's the way Linux works. We evolve the existing code. > > 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
