On 10/21/05 17:12, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > I already described why. Examples are DMA boundary and s/g limit, among > others. When confronted with this, you proposed an additional hardware > information struct which duplicates Scsi_Host_Template. I told you -- I have this in the struct asd_ha_struct and it was merely a downplay that I didn't include the same thing in struct sas_ha_struct. > Solution? Just use Scsi_Host_Template. Take a look at how each libata No, this is the solution which would turn everything upside down. The easiest and smallest solution is to just include this tiny struct and end this. It would have 0 impact on code. In fact I'll implement it now and push it to the git tree. ;-) The host template _mixes_ hw, scsi core, and protocol knowlege into one ugly blob. I've given this argument before, several times. > driver is implemented. The host template is in the low level driver, > while most of the code is common code, implemented elsewhere. libata isn't without architectural problems. What strikes me is that you think that libata-scsi is SATL. You are so much better off renaming it to satl.c and given the knowlege you've gained over the years and the backing you have from engineers from companies, start with it at device level. I, as I'm sure other (not to name names) will be more than happy to contribute if you started this. Luben -- http://linux.adaptec.com/sas/ http://www.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
