Hi, On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 04:20:15PM +0200, Michal Nazarewicz wrote: > >On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Michal Nazarewicz wrote: > >>It's not that g_mass_storage was written from scratch. Most of the code > >>was taken from g_file_storage. I always thought about it as adding a > >>tiny layer to what Alan has written. I also always felt that > >>g_mass_storage âis mineâ not because I wrote it but because I > >>introduced bugs to Alan's code, so I need to take care of those. ;) > > On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:05:18 +0200, Alan Stern wrote: > >That's right; this isn't a matter of ownership. However there are some > >technical differences too. IIRC: > > > > g_mass_storage is more permissive about some of the module > > parameters. It allows "removable" and "cdrom" attributes to > > be specified independently for different LUNs, whereas > > g_file_storage uses a single value of each for all LUNs. > > Those are minor differences though. Minor in the sense that anything > that one was able to pass to g_file_storage can be passed to > g_mass_storage with potentially changed syntax. > > > g_file_storage allows the user to specify the transport and > > protocol values, whereas g_mass_storage doesn't. This is > > not very useful in production (everybody uses Bulk-Only and > > Transparent SCSI these days), but it might be useful for > > testing (or for emulating a USB floppy drive). > > Ah, right, I have completely forgotten about those. That could be > a reason to stick to both or implement it in g_mass_storage. I > don't feel competent commenting on the usefulness of the other > modes. > > >In addition there's the user problem. If we eliminate one driver or > >the other, it forces some people to change their runtime environment. > >Of course, the kernel has done this sort of thing in the past. But at > >least there ought to be an initial period during which one driver is > >deprecated, before it is removed completely. > > Agreed. That's what I meant saying to âphase outâ. Makes sense to me. Should we add it on feature-removal-schedule to remove one of those in e.g. 3.10 ? -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
