From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [Fwd: [RFT] major libata update] Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 02:07:19 +0900 Message-ID: <446A06C7.5050609@gmail.com> References: <4468B596.9090508@garzik.org> <1147789098.3505.19.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <4469F2B2.703@garzik.org> <1147794708.3505.30.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <4469F906.7040602@gmail.com> <1147796999.3505.42.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <446A0053.5070203@gmail.com> <1147798226.3505.56.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=EUC-KR Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.233]:42696 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932151AbWEPRH1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 May 2006 13:07:27 -0400 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i3so21149wra for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 10:07:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1147798226.3505.56.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Jeff Garzik , SCSI Mailing List , "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds 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