Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753771AbYBLT2c (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:28:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751135AbYBLT2U (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:28:20 -0500 Received: from accolon.hansenpartnership.com ([76.243.235.52]:60956 "EHLO accolon.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750928AbYBLT2T (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:28:19 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] enclosure: add support for enclosure services From: James Bottomley To: kristen.c.accardi@intel.com Cc: ltuikov@yahoo.com, linux-scsi , linux-kernel , linux-ide , jeff@garzik.org In-Reply-To: <20080212110752.21840627@appleyard> References: <1202172065.3096.154.camel@localhost.localdomain> <922945.25870.qm@web31811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20080212102244.32869382@appleyard> <1202841935.3137.94.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080212110752.21840627@appleyard> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:28:15 -0600 Message-Id: <1202844495.3137.120.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 (2.12.3-1.fc8) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1706 Lines: 39 On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 11:07 -0800, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote: > I understand what you are trying to do - I guess I just doubt the value > you've added by doing this. I think that there's going to be so much > customization that system vendors will want to add, that they are going > to wind up adding a custom library regardless, so standardising those > few things won't buy us anything. It depends ... if you actually have a use for the customisations, yes. If you just want the basics of who (what's in the enclousure), what (activity) and where (locate) then I think it solves your problem almost entirely. So, entirely as a straw horse, tell me what else your enclosures provide that I haven't listed in the four points. The SES standards too provide a huge range of things that no-one ever seems to implement (temperature, power, fan speeds etc). I think the users of enclosures fall int these categories 85% just want to know where their device actually is (i.e. that sdc is in enclosure slot 5) 50% like watching the activity lights 30% want to be able to have a visual locate function 20% want a visual failure indication (the other 80% rely on some OS notification instead) When you add up the overlapping needs, you get about 90% of people happy with the basics that the enclosure services provide. Could there be more ... sure; should there be more ... I don't think so ... that's what value add the user libraries can provide. James -- 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/