Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > SCSI is a generic peripheral bus No, not anymore. http://www.t10.org/scsi-3.htm > (recall the expansion of the acronym). The expansion of the acronym doesn't fit anymore to what SCSI is today, or even to what it became already circa 10 years ago. > Even though probably the most common, storage is one of its applications > only (think scanners for an immediately obvious other one). I find > describing CONFIG_SCSI as "storage support" misleading and inappropriate. Right. I wrote that in lack of better words, but at least I added "SCSI commands" in parentheses. Something like "SCSI I/O - core and command sets" would much better describe what it is, but it would put "SCSI" first again and thus wouldn't reflect that Linux' SCSI core and highlevel is in broader use than just for actual SCSI hardware... Of course there is no way around the issue that Linux' SCSI core's and highlevel's role cannot be characterized in 3...6 words only, but there should be a way to point out its general importance. > Referring to your example it is like calling generic networking (i.e. > CONFIG_NET) "Ethernet support". Wrong comparison. -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== =--= =---= http://arcgraph.de/sr/ - 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
