RE: [PATCH 1/5] aacraid: simplify non-dasd support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Christoph Hellwig [mailto:hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] writes:
> NACK on the write filter.  If we can agree on it beeing 
> useful (and I must admit I tend to the contrary opinion)
> it should be done in higher layers.

Did a rough look, neither scsi_dispatch_cmd nor scsi_request_fn
have any scsi command sniffing. Can not go any higher because we
have the no_uld_attach flag set. Given that only RAID cards would
consider this protection necessary, it is hard to justify adding
this overhead into scsi.c. The overhead in aacraid is minimal as
we are already sniffin' and spoofin' scsi commands.

I need to understand why you feel protecting array components
is bad. Without that protection we will not be able to justify
making these components visible at least via sg for
administrative reasons (scsi tools, mode pages etc).

-- Mark Salyzyn
-
: 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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux