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: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 11:06:25 +0200 Message-ID: <1129885586.2786.12.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> References: <91888D455306F94EBD4D168954A9457C048F0E34@nacos172.co.lsil.com> <20051020160155.GA14296@lst.de> <4357CB03.4020400@adaptec.com> <20051020170330.GA16458@lst.de> <4357F7DE.7050004@adaptec.com> <1129852879.30258.137.camel@bluto.andrew> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:31697 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932560AbVJUJGh (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Oct 2005 05:06:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1129852879.30258.137.camel@bluto.andrew> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: andrew.patterson@hp.com Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, jejb@steeleye.com, "Moore, Eric Dean" , Christoph Hellwig , Luben Tuikov On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 18:01 -0600, Andrew Patterson wrote: > Yes, CSMI should have had more Linux input when it was developed. The > no-new IOCTL policy certainly came as a surprise to the authors. Still, > there doesn't seem to be any other usable cross-platform interface that > is acceptable to the linux community (or at least to Christoph)'s corner > of it). My personal preference is to hide this stuff in a library, so > the kernel implementation is hidden. But even a library needs an > underlying kernel implementation. but why didn't CSMI specify the library interface then? If it did that, then none of the "ioctls are deprecated for 3 years now" would have come as a surprise. Or rather, it maybe would have, but it wouldn't have mattered to the management app.