Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932433AbVJDGwh (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Oct 2005 02:52:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932429AbVJDGwh (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Oct 2005 02:52:37 -0400 Received: from astound-64-85-224-245.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.245]:64772 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932427AbVJDGwg (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Oct 2005 02:52:36 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 23:51:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Andre Hedrick To: Luben Tuikov cc: Alan Cox , Arjan van de Ven , "Salyzyn, Mark" , andrew.patterson@hp.com, dougg@torque.net, Linus Torvalds , Luben Tuikov , SCSI Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: I request inclusion of SAS Transport Layer and AIC-94xx into the kernel In-Reply-To: <4341599D.70904@adaptec.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: 1970 Lines: 57 On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Luben Tuikov wrote: > On 10/01/05 19:55, Alan Cox wrote: > > On Gwe, 2005-09-30 at 19:53 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > >>that makes me wonder... why and how does T10 control linux abi's ?? > > > > > > Indirectly the standards do define APIs at the very least. A good > > example is taskfile. ACPI methods (which we don't yet use) allow get/set > > mode, get features on the motherboard ATA controller if you don't know > > how to drive it. The objects they work in are taskfiles. No taskfiles, > > no ACPI. > > Yes, that's true. Luben, Here was your entry point to state SCSI uses "taskfiles" in the packet transport. > Even more is true. Standards and specs define the > _layering infrastructure_ which if implemented, > allows for layer intersection. > > For example, if one needs to insert a SATL later just because > the underlaying transport was found able to transport it, > since the layering is well defined and _so_ implemented, it wouldn't > be hard to interface antother well defined layer in. > > If, OTOH, things are conglomerated into a blob, just because > the kernel engineers (not (storage) engineers per se) found _no_ current > use of the layering infrastructure and separating the layers > was found do add "more maintenance", then this will turn around > sooner or later to bite back. Not everyone has to be a "storage engineer", but a "storage engineer" must be able to explain to any OS developer/engineer the scope of the transport and work within the OS or explain why a change is required. A lot of both has happened so ... to quote Elmo: "ARE WE THERE YETTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!" This process is moving like rush hours in the SF-Bay area. Cheers, Andre - 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/