Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 14:17:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 14:17:49 -0500 Received: from astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.253]:15123 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 14:17:32 -0500 Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:11:23 -0800 (PST) From: Andre Hedrick To: Linus Torvalds cc: Kernel Mailing List Subject: Domian Validation (Re: 2.5.1 - intermediate bio stuff..) 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 Linus, As to be completely clear on your point, you do not want any patches that describe the rules for driver "domain validation". Next, you do not want any patches that fix gross things, too. IE, exiting of any ISR's to perform BH events. Noting that one is not able to kludge it anymore, the solution is to cut off the beast and start from scratch. Now the significance of driver "domain validation", in block/storage is the inner-play with the VM layer via a swap partition or file. Until you can validate the new block io is correct at the data-transport layer, where the requests are converted to the actual data-io to the disk you have nothing but a WAG. You will also have no way to separate issues of FS/Memory corruption should it not be gone yet. Otherwise you have to disable any and all forms of SWAP real or file. Since there is no way to validate the drivers and many believe it is not important to perform such tests, how can you assure anyone given user their data is safe? Right now you are giving the impression that you do not care about data integrity, and refusing to acknowledge this will further prove you are in the same camp. I remember all the crap taken over FS Corruption in the past, and now present to you a perfect driver and a way to authenticate the data transport and you thumb down the idea, directly or indirectly. I had plans to try and do the same for SCSI to become compliant to SPI 4, but given the total rejection of layer isolateion for regression testing it does not seem practical. This is stated because the simple case is being rejected so I see no way to even present the more complex case ever. So do us all the favor by answering and explaining your position on the scale of this sensitive issue. I am sure everyone would like to hear your views on the need or useless bloat that would result from having a testable diskdrive data transport layer. My bets are on you will call it "useless bloat". Regards, Andre Hedrick CEO/President, LAD Storage Consulting Group Linux ATA Development Linux Disk Certification Project On Sun, 16 Dec 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > I just made a 2.5.1, but I'm still concentrating on bio stuff, so don't > bother sending me other patches unless they are serious bug-fixes to > something else. > > 2.5.1 is hopefully a good interim stage - many block drivers should work > fine, but many more do not. However, the pre-patches were getting > largish, so I'd rather do a 2.5.1 than wait for all the details. > > As to other stuff - note the separation of drivers for new and old tulip > chips: if you have an old 2104x tulip chip (as opposed to the newer 2114x > chips) the regular tulip driver doesn't work any more for you. Don't be > surprised, select CONFIG_DE2104X. > > 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/