Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750755AbVI1T6h (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:58:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750754AbVI1T6h (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:58:37 -0400 Received: from astound-64-85-224-245.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.245]:49420 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750752AbVI1T6g (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:58:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:45:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Andre Hedrick To: Patrick Mansfield cc: Luben Tuikov , Jeff Garzik , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , SCSI Mailing List Subject: Re: I request inclusion of SAS Transport Layer and AIC-94xx into the kernel In-Reply-To: <20050928162712.GA7615@us.ibm.com> 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 Content-Length: 2340 Lines: 64 Hi Patrick, You have hit on one of the key word of my downfall. Specifications!!! I believe in them and they are the inflexable state machine which all OSes are required to address. Linux has a very bad history of avoiding the boundary conditions related to storage. I am for following the rules of the spec, and will bet Linus would now agree more so than before. The problem is SCSI is a strange beast without a formal FSM. It is more of a BusPhase psuedo stated transport. It is smart enough to laugh at bad software designs and keep going. Sheesh, look at M$'s miniport. This leads me to a point where a similar (but smarter) miniport could look interesting. However, this is also where the transport classes have their bases, afaics. Anyone please correct me where I have mistated (other than Linus, :-p). Luben, I have a vested interest in seeing SAS run via SCSI. So this means you have one ex-demi-god from the world of maintainers looking to pull you have towards the current path and open to ideas and willing to back a better design and push it. Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Patrick Mansfield wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 04:37:03AM -0700, Luben Tuikov wrote: > > > never ever going in. Why else do you think IBM-ers agree with him that > > Linux SCSI doesn't need 64 bit LUNS? > > Please stop repeating that, no one said we should *not* implement a 64 bit > LUN in linux scsi, and James posted a patch for 64 bit LUN. I posted a > clarification in response to your earlier postings, you seem to have > ignored or forgotten this post: > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=112671847228275&w=2 > > I said: > > "I am talking about the scsi spec, not the code. IMO linux scsi code > should support W_LUN and 64 bit LUN." > > -- Patrick Mansfield > - > 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/ > - 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/