From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luben Tuikov Subject: Re: [RFC] libata new EH document Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:09:15 -0400 Message-ID: <43177C0B.9040500@adaptec.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> <431776A0.2030107@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <431776A0.2030107@pobox.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: James Bottomley , Tejun Heo , ltuikov@yahoo.com, Albert Lee , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, SCSI Mailing List , Doug Maxey List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On 09/01/05 17:46, Jeff Garzik wrote: >>>>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. Hmm, maybe I should've been more clear. > 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. You must be kidding! "robust"? What are you comparing this to? I think it's only because "it's there" and that it provides a uniform access -- provided by SCSI, _not_ by that particular SCSI implementation. > My long term plans include moving some of this not-SCSI-related > infrastructure from the SCSI layer to the block layer. Which is that infrastructure? Luben