James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 01:39 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: >> I certainly can, and it was done that way first time around. Please >> note the following discussion. >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.scsi/23853/focus=9760 >> >> Luben objected the interface made public because SCSI host is not >> supposed to know about exception conditions which are not associated >> with ITL nor ITLQ nexus. Thus, I made it a temporary measure only for >> libata, which is planned to move out. > > His objection is still valid. However, as the balance of evils, I > think, if you have to do this, it's better to contain it in a way where > it's obvious what's being done. Plus you don't want someone to modify > the host state model and suddenly find libata doesn't work anymore > because they failed to spot that it needed to change as well ... I see. >> So, SCSI contains only the necessary bits required to implement the >> feature and libata open-codes the rest. As it's not an exported >> interface, no other SCSI driver is supposed to use it and the SCSI >> modifications can be easily removed after libata moves out. >> >> As long as libata can do EH not associated with scmd or device, I'm okay >> either way and think it's your call. So, considering the above >> discussion, do you want it to be a generic SCSI interface? > > Yes, but in scsi_priv.h, please ... I can actually think of another use > for it in terms of getting the SG reset handler to work properly. Okay, will do in scsi_priv.h Jeff, it seems that we need to reset #upstream and rebuild it. Do you have any other idea than resetting libata-tj#for-jeff and libata-dev#upstream? -- tejun - : 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
