From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: I2O enhancement for Adaptec management software Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 12:10:08 +0200 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040405101007.GA27710@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <40712A47.4090903@shadowconnect.com> <1081159378.4679.1.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> <20040405110524.A3987@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5" Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:14730 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263174AbUDEKKk (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Apr 2004 06:10:40 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040405110524.A3987@infradead.org> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Markus Lidel , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org --bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 11:05:24AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 12:02:59PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > is there a convincing argument why this can't use the SG_IO mechanism > > instead of a device private ioctl ? > > Yes. These are i2o commands, not scsi commands. does that matter really ? Does SG_IO specify "it's scsi" or "it's native format" :) --bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAcTB/xULwo51rQBIRAgvYAJ4jTmmWtRA1kJNgn08jCzNrCyngpwCfT4FX dp/O5bIVhvycTxQEBdRSXnU= =WBJr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5--