On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:43:50PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > 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. You're both being silly. Interacting with a subsystem via its exposed interfaces is not a layering violation. > 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? There are people with PATA->SATA adapters. I think there's one in your P7120 (or is that one a PATA->SATA adapter?) In any case, I don't think we need to do anything until someone complains. -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." -- 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
