From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomasz Chmielewski Subject: Re: lspci says: "SCSI storage controller: Qumranet, Inc. Virtio block device". Is it really? Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:42:52 +0200 Message-ID: <4ADC6CDC.3000409@wpkg.org> References: <4ADC582E.305@wpkg.org> <68676e00910190609t5dee17e9y9f26b63b7a077de3@mail.gmail.com> <4ADC6A25.5080503@wpkg.org> <68676e00910190636r693950dfk6abccd4c8ed3ad63@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org To: Luca Tettamanti Return-path: In-Reply-To: <68676e00910190636r693950dfk6abccd4c8ed3ad63@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Luca Tettamanti wrote: >> So why was "SCSI storage controller" any better than "IDE interface" or >> "SATA controller" for virtio block device, if it does not talk SCSI protocol >> (other than "SCSI storage controller" being the first on the list of >> subclasses)? > > Because both ATA and SATA classes have a generic driver that would try > to bind to that controller (and the whole point of virtio block device > is to avoid emulating a ATA/SATA controller). > >> Doesn't "80 Mass storage controller" ("0x80 0x00 Other mass storage >> controller") fit better for virtio block device? > > Maybe. I guess that are compatibility problem with "other" operating systems. Thanks for clarifications. It makes sense in that case - I don't have any more questions ;) -- Tomasz Chmielewski http://wpkg.org