From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Smart Subject: Re: [Fwd: [RFT] major libata update] Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:58:49 -0400 Message-ID: <446B4839.4060302@emulex.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> <4469F9FB.7020807@garzik.org> <1147797507.3505.52.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <446A048B.6040703@garzik.org> <20060517073701.GE4197@suse.de> <446B3BE0.8040806@garzik.org> <1147881002.3463.23.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Reply-To: James.Smart@Emulex.Com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1147881002.3463.23.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Jeff Garzik , Jens Axboe , SCSI Mailing List , "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" , Tejun Heo , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 11:06 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> storage device and storage host are key objects included in the > > This is one of the questions. Currently block has no concept of "host". > All it knows about are queues (which may be per host or per device > depending on the implementation). Do we need to introduce the concept > of something like queue grouping (a sort of lightweight infrastructure > that could be used by the underlying transport to implement a host > concept without introducing hosts at the block layer)? Boy, this sounds interesting. Could also be a more sane way to implement can_queue depths for the host. Another thing comes to mind - queue depths per target, which has always been missing from Linux. Although, any grouping immediately brings to mind scheduling policies within the group. -- james s