Re: ioctls, etc. (was Re: [PATCH 1/4] sas: add flag for locally attached PHYs)

Luben Tuikov
2005-10-21T20:05:48Z

On 10/21/05 15:54, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> No. What was advertised was a SCSI BOF which you then took over and

It was advertised as "SAS BOF" -- the person who wrote that on the message
board (reading this list currently) can verify that.

> spent the entire time talking about the Adaptec SAS driver. You weren't
> interested in discussing wider SCSI issues. You weren't interested in
> talking about how other vendors implemented SAS. You weren't interested
> in discussing how we could get the best possible SAS interface in Linux.

I still am. What everyone now wants is SDI. And as you can see I've posted
several times _code_ and templates as to how to do a backend which would
work as per spec and a front end which would be adjustable to the whims of
"the community", sg/sysfs/whatever1/whatever2.

I think SDI will completely satisfy everyone's needs, independently of
the fact whether the the protocol is hidden in the FW or not.

In fact Fusion MPT is very cool: you only add a few PCI IDs and your
hw works with the same driver! And if you care about protocol
specifics: use SDI.

But the community wanted involvement so then you say: "No! Give us
your hardware, we'll do it for you." and then you get into this
never-ending goose chase, implementing the wrong thing, the wrong way,
as opposed to _listening_ to what is actually wanted.

> You shut down other people when they tried to discuss these things.
> It was a complete waste of time.

Sorry you feel this way. I don't remember you saying anything about
SAS.
Luben
--