From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] isci merge candidate Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 08:16:02 +1000 Message-ID: <1305324962.2781.5.camel@pasglop> References: <1305317680.21099.83.camel@dwillia2-linux> <4DCDA663.2040202@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4DCDA663.2040202@intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dan Williams Cc: Linus Torvalds , "James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com" , Christoph Hellwig , linux-kernel , linux-scsi , "Jiang, Dave" , David Milburn , "Ciechanowski, Ed" , "Nadolski, Edmund" , "Danecki, Jacek" , "Skirvin, Jeffrey D" , Jeff Garzik List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org > It's a SAS (serial-attached-scsi) driver so it ties in to libsas rather > than libata (libsas itself ties in to libata for tunnelling SATA > protocol over SAS). The size is attributable to the fact that all > protocol handling for non-fast path i/o is handled by software. There > are still cleanups that can be made, but likely not on the on the same > order of what we have already done. How much of that non-fast-path could/should be in generic code vs. in the driver specific code ? IE. If somebody comes up with another "dumb" SAS adapter tomorrow that doesn't do all that magic in an offload CPU, is any of that code re-usable ? Cheers, Ben.