On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 11:53 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > 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. It depends on the interface: sys_open is an exposed interface, but any SCSI driver trying to use it will be caught and shot for egregious layering violations. The elevator setting interface is a policy interface designed for users, not for lower layers of the I/O stack. > > 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?) No ... it's using an IHC6 with two interfaces, one SATA and one PATA. > In any case, I don't think > we need to do anything until someone complains. Agreed. 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
