On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Luben Tuikov wrote: > On 10/01/05 19:55, Alan Cox wrote: > > On Gwe, 2005-09-30 at 19:53 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > >>that makes me wonder... why and how does T10 control linux abi's ?? > > > > > > Indirectly the standards do define APIs at the very least. A good > > example is taskfile. ACPI methods (which we don't yet use) allow get/set > > mode, get features on the motherboard ATA controller if you don't know > > how to drive it. The objects they work in are taskfiles. No taskfiles, > > no ACPI. > > Yes, that's true. Luben, Here was your entry point to state SCSI uses "taskfiles" in the packet transport. > Even more is true. Standards and specs define the > _layering infrastructure_ which if implemented, > allows for layer intersection. > > For example, if one needs to insert a SATL later just because > the underlaying transport was found able to transport it, > since the layering is well defined and _so_ implemented, it wouldn't > be hard to interface antother well defined layer in. > > If, OTOH, things are conglomerated into a blob, just because > the kernel engineers (not (storage) engineers per se) found _no_ current > use of the layering infrastructure and separating the layers > was found do add "more maintenance", then this will turn around > sooner or later to bite back. Not everyone has to be a "storage engineer", but a "storage engineer" must be able to explain to any OS developer/engineer the scope of the transport and work within the OS or explain why a change is required. A lot of both has happened so ... to quote Elmo: "ARE WE THERE YETTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!" This process is moving like rush hours in the SF-Bay area. Cheers, Andre - : 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
