Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 16:37:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 16:37:08 -0500 Received: from neon-gw.transmeta.com ([209.10.217.66]:52484 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 16:36:56 -0500 Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 13:35:23 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Alan Cox cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , , , Subject: Re: Larger dev_t In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Alan Cox wrote: > > > layer made it impossible for a driver writer to be nice to the user, so > > instead they got their own major numbers. > > Not deficiencies in the SCSI layer, there is no way the scsi layer can > handle high end raid controllers. In fact one of the reasons we can beat > NT with some of these controllers is because NT does exactly what you > suggest with scsi miniport driver hacks and it _sucks_. Its an ugly hack. We could do this fairly _trivially_ today. With absolutely no performance degradation. With a simple "queue" mapping for the SCSI majors. Just look up which queue to use for requests to which major, and you're done. The actual IO may by-pass the SCSI layer altogether. So I'm absolutely not advocating using the SCSI layer for the high-end-disks. Rather the reverse. I'm advocating the SCSI layer not hogging a major number, but letting low-level drivers get at _their_ requests directly. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/