Re: Let's get rid of ide-scsi

[Wakko Warner <wakko@animx.eu.org>]

Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 07:11:07AM -0500, Wakko Warner wrote:
> > Greg KH wrote:
> > > What "seperate USB block layer"?
> > 
> > Maybe not a "block layer", but there was this Under drivers/block devices in
> > the config:
> > Low Performance USB Block driver
> 
> What is your objection to this driver?  It fills a real need for people
> who do not want the whole scsi stack in their kernels (embedded, memory
> constraints, closed systems, etc.), and probably is not even considered
> "Low Performance" anymore.

Ok, now this I did not know which is why I personally objected to it.  I saw
no reason to have it with usb-storage since both did something similar.  Now
that I know what it's purpose is, I don't see a problem with it as far as
availability to the ones who are low memory, embedded, etc, but I won't need
it myself.  I normally use systtems with scsi controllers and need the full
scsi layer.

If/When libata takes over ide in general, how many of these machine will
then require the scsi layer?  I would think all systems would except ones
without internal disks (non-usb/firewire).

I do appreciate the info, thanks.

-- 
 Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals
 Got Gas???