On 2020-05-16 02:14, Avri Altman wrote: >> Thank you for having taken the time to publish your work. The way this >> series has been split into individual patches makes reviewing easy. >> Additionally, the cover letter and patch descriptions are very >> informative, insightful and well written. However, I'm concerned about a >> key aspect of the implementation, namely relying on a device handler to >> alter the meaning of a block layer request. My concern about this >> approach is that at most one device handler can be associated with a >> SCSI LLD. If in the future more functionality would be added to the UFS >> spec and if it would be desirable to implement that functionality as a >> new kernel module, it won't be possible to implement that functionality >> as a new device handler. So I think that not relying on the device >> handler infrastructure is more future proof because that removes the >> restrictions we have to deal with when using the device handler framework. > > So should we keep perusing this direction, or leave it, and concentrate in Bean's RFC? > Or maybe come up with a 3rd way? Hi Avri, I prefer to proceed with reviewing Bean's patch series. If someone prefers a different approach, I think this is a good time to bring that up. Thanks, Bart.
