Re: [Fwd: [RFT] major libata update]

[Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>]

James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 01:39 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> I certainly can, and it was done that way first time around.  Please
>> note the following discussion.
>>
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.scsi/23853/focus=9760
>>
>> Luben objected the interface made public because SCSI host is not
>> supposed to know about exception conditions which are not associated
>> with ITL nor ITLQ nexus.  Thus, I made it a temporary measure only for
>> libata, which is planned to move out.
> 
> His objection is still valid.  However, as the balance of evils, I
> think, if you have to do this, it's better to contain it in a way where
> it's obvious what's being done.  Plus you don't want someone to modify
> the host state model and suddenly find libata doesn't work anymore
> because they failed to spot that it needed to change as well ...

I see.

>> So, SCSI contains only the necessary bits required to implement the
>> feature and libata open-codes the rest.  As it's not an exported
>> interface, no other SCSI driver is supposed to use it and the SCSI
>> modifications can be easily removed after libata moves out.
>>
>> As long as libata can do EH not associated with scmd or device, I'm okay
>> either way and think it's your call.  So, considering the above
>> discussion, do you want it to be a generic SCSI interface?
> 
> Yes, but in scsi_priv.h, please ... I can actually think of another use
> for it in terms of getting the SG reset handler to work properly.

Okay, will do in scsi_priv.h

Jeff, it seems that we need to reset #upstream and rebuild it.  Do you
have any other idea than resetting libata-tj#for-jeff and
libata-dev#upstream?

-- 
tejun