On Fri, Dec 15 2006, James Bottomley wrote: > On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 19:57 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > > Good start! Just one comment before I look over this and merge it - > > I'd > > prefer keeping this out of sg.c. One of the problems we have right now > > are dual pieces of code for sg v3, and I think it would be silly to > > continue down this path. Lets keep sg.c as a legacy sg v3 interface > > (it'll be the only one except SG_IO in the block layer), and let bsg > > take sg v4 and forward. > > > > There's really zero gain in having it in two places. > > There is a slight complexity here in that sg is the only thing that > attaches to things like processor devices, or other devices we have no > ULD for; so if we want sg v4 exposed to them, we need to at least route > sg though this ioctl. Rather a little pain for something like that, than the pain of duplicating and maintaining that code. -- Jens Axboe - To unsubscribe from this list: 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
