Re: [PATCH v3 00/20] sg: add v4 interface

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

 



On 8/8/19 2:37 PM, Tony Battersby wrote:
On 8/8/19 5:08 PM, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
*** Tony Battersby is a sg driver power user. He has lamented wading through
      very large logs looking for some hint of why the sg driver is playing
      up. He has stated the strong preference for more, not less, ioctls.

One of the reasons ioctls have a bad reputation is because they can be
used to implement poorly-thought-out interfaces.  So kernel maintainers
push back on adding new ioctls.  But the push back isn't about the
number of ioctls, it is about the poor interfaces.  My advice was that
in general, to implement a given API, it would be better to add more
ioctls with a simple interface for each one rather than to add fewer
extremely complex multiplexing ioctls.

Hi Tony,

What is your motivation to use the SG_IO API? Is it controlling SMR drives or are you using SG_IO for another reason? I'm asking because depending on the use case there may be a better solution than using the SG_IO API.

Thanks,

Bart.



[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