From: Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com>
To: "Mukker, Atul" <Atulm@lsil.com>
Cc: 'Matt Domsch' <Matt_Domsch@dell.com>,
'Christoph Hellwig' <hch@infradead.org>,
'James Bottomley' <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>,
'Paul Wagland' <paul@wagland.net>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@debian.org>,
"'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"'linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [SUBJECT CHANGE]: megaraid unified driver version 2.20.0.0-al pha1
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:43:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040226074317.GC32246@devserv.devel.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0E3FA95632D6D047BA649F95DAB60E57033BC3EA@exa-atlanta.se.lsil.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 928 bytes --]
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 06:05:43PM -0500, Mukker, Atul wrote:
> All,
>
> Thanks a lot for the valuable feedback. The general consensus is against a
> single driver for different class of controllers. This would put a strain on
> our applications, which expect all the controllers to be exported from
> single driver's private ioctl interface.
>
> With multiple adapters, applications would need to open multiple handles.
> This would somewhat complicate things for them. But keeping in line with
> general expectations, we would fork the drivers for different class of
> controllers now.
How much private ioctls do you need actually ? I assume that for sending raw
commands you use SG_IO already...
BTW it would be really nice if the various raid controller drivers could
come up with a joint common IOCTL api since it seems every raid controller
driver right now has a largely overlapping but yet different set of ioctls.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-26 7:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-25 23:05 [SUBJECT CHANGE]: megaraid unified driver version 2.20.0.0-al pha1 Mukker, Atul
2004-02-26 2:38 ` Jeff Garzik
2004-02-26 2:44 ` Matt Domsch
2004-02-26 7:43 ` Arjan van de Ven [this message]
2004-02-26 7:49 ` Jeff Garzik
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-03-19 22:17 Mukker, Atul
2004-03-19 22:26 ` Matthew Wilcox
2004-02-26 15:21 Mukker, Atul
2004-02-25 20:41 Mukker, Atul
2004-02-25 20:38 Mukker, Atul
2004-02-25 20:44 ` 'Christoph Hellwig'
2004-02-25 21:38 ` Matt Domsch
2004-02-26 2:27 ` Jeff Garzik
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040226074317.GC32246@devserv.devel.redhat.com \
--to=arjanv@redhat.com \
--cc=Atulm@lsil.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com \
--cc=Matt_Domsch@dell.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@wagland.net \
--cc=willy@debian.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.