From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [RFC] libata new EH document Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 17:46:08 -0400 Message-ID: <431776A0.2030107@pobox.com> References: <20050901043850.15186.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com> <43169520.6040008@gmail.com> <20050901055421.GA23496@havoc.gtf.org> <1125581097.4834.5.camel@mulgrave> <4317755C.5080700@adaptec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.dvmed.net ([216.237.124.58]:7125 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030415AbVIAVqY (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:46:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4317755C.5080700@adaptec.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Luben Tuikov Cc: James Bottomley , Tejun Heo , ltuikov@yahoo.com, Albert Lee , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, SCSI Mailing List , Doug Maxey Luben Tuikov wrote: > On 09/01/05 09:24, James Bottomley wrote: > >>On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 01:54 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> >> >>>The long term direction for the SCSI core seems to be that of >>>requiring auto-sensing. >> >> >>No, I don't see the mid-layer error thread handling of this ever going >>away. >> >> >>>libata is simply being lazy: while the SCSI core continues to support >>>kicking the EH thread when sense is missing, it's preferred for libata >>>to reuse that infrastructure. >> >> >>That makes the most sense ;-) > > > For libata it doesn't really matter, since it is _ATA_. It matters quite a bit. One of the main reasons libata uses the SCSI layer is for its infrastructure. This is the same reason a couple RAID drivers use the SCSI layer. It has nothing to do with SCSI-as-defined-by-T10, and more to do with the fact that SCSI provides a robust queueing/EH/block interface infrastructure. My long term plans include moving some of this not-SCSI-related infrastructure from the SCSI layer to the block layer. Jeff