On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 11:06 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 18:01 -0600, Andrew Patterson wrote: > > > Yes, CSMI should have had more Linux input when it was developed. The > > no-new IOCTL policy certainly came as a surprise to the authors. Still, > > there doesn't seem to be any other usable cross-platform interface that > > is acceptable to the linux community (or at least to Christoph)'s corner > > of it). My personal preference is to hide this stuff in a library, so > > the kernel implementation is hidden. But even a library needs an > > underlying kernel implementation. > > > but why didn't CSMI specify the library interface then? If it did that, > then none of the "ioctls are deprecated for 3 years now" would have come > as a surprise. Or rather, it maybe would have, but it wouldn't have > mattered to the management app. > I asked one of the authors, Steve Fairchild, about this. He said that they had had a bad experience with HBAAPI, the FC library. They had a lot of problems with vendors keeping the library up to date, multiple vendors shipping multiple incompatible versions, etc. I wasn't entirely convinced, since they seem to have just replaced one set of problems for another. Andrew - : 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
