On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 11:34 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 07:26:39PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > Uhm, but it IS "a blatant layering violation", it's doing things from > > the wrong side up :-) > > That's just "doing things from a spot Jens doesn't approve of". A > layering violation would be SCSI knowing how elevators work. When it was setting particular elevators, it was a layering violation (as I said at the time). If it's just setting a seek cost hint, that's acceptable. > > I don't think udev is a particularly good idea either. My plan was to > > introduce device profiles for the queue, but it is probably a bad idea > > to over-engineer this. So I'll keep it simple, stick to a 'zero cost > > seek' flag instead and allow drivers to signal that. libata/ide needs to > > check the ID page word to detect SSD drives as well, so they need a few > > lines of change too. > > One of the other patches in this mess was the libata piece to translate > ATA8's rotation speed to SCSI's b1 VPD page, so ide is the only > remaining work left to do (can't it die already?) I don't think there is any IDE work to do ... the last I heard from the manufacturers, they were all not going to bother with PATA interfaces to SSDs ... unless this has changed? > > I'll just stick the block bit in the 2.6.27 pending queue and let the > > other patches go through Jeff/James/Bart. James -- 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
