From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] sas: add flag for locally attached PHYs Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 19:22:39 +0200 Message-ID: <1129828959.2807.18.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> References: <91888D455306F94EBD4D168954A9457C048F0E34@nacos172.co.lsil.com> <20051020160155.GA14296@lst.de> <4357CB03.4020400@adaptec.com> <20051020170330.GA16458@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:22711 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932496AbVJTRWu (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:22:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20051020170330.GA16458@lst.de> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, jejb@steeleye.com, "Moore, Eric Dean" , Luben Tuikov > We are not going to implement SDI in the kernel. Long before SDI or > it's predecessor, HP CSMI were designed we made it clear we're not going > to accept wide ioctl-APIs, especially when they're even bad for old > ioctl API standards. The CSMI spec has been passed around in an early > phase and been totally rejected, Just to say AYE on this: the problem with these things is that they define an IOCTL interface, while a library level interface would have been a LOT better. By far. That way the spec doesn't define the implementation, but only a real INTERFACE while allowing flexibility and compatibility. IOCTLs are just very very much the wrong layer to put such an interface. (just as posix/sus specify the (g)libc interface and not the kernel interface, although of course they impact it somewhat and glibc can for several things do a straight pass-through to the raw kernel interface).