Luben Tuikov wrote:
On 10/03/05 11:57, Jeff Garzik wrote:
From what I see, because of its *layering* position
JB's "transport attributes" cannot satisfy open transport.
Repeating verbatim the above quote: a transport class is more than just
transport attributes.
a) "Transport Attributes" _is_ its name,
No, transport class is its name. Think about a standard object-oriented
paradigm. Each transport has unique characteristics. The proper place
to export these and manage these characteristics is the transport layer,
as SAM agrees. The manifestation of the transport layer is the
transport class.
You have to look beyond the current code, to see this.
An implementation of a transport class, in conjunction with helper
functions common to all transports (SCSI core), combines to form the
transport layer for a specific transport.
b) It sits across SCSI Core, i.e. on the same level.
c) It was never intended to add management.
SCSI core is nothing but a set of helper functions and support code that
enable the transport class and LLDD to implement the transport layer.
d) Its inteface to SCSI Core is badly defined and an "invention",
(and very poor at that).
Strongly disagree. This invention is defined by -needs-, as is other
code in Linux. If we have new needs, we change the code.
The reason for d) is that
2) does _not_ follow _any_ spec or standard.
That's fine, since its an internal kernel API.
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
