From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: SNIA iSCSI Management API Public Review Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:07:34 +0100 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20041026210734.GA18479@infradead.org> References: <20041026182914.GA6006@lists.us.dell.com> <20041026194926.GA17456@infradead.org> <417EAC8F.5010109@netapp.com> <20041026202311.GA17844@infradead.org> <417EBBD1.7090508@netapp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from phoenix.infradead.org ([81.187.226.98]:1038 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261465AbUJZVHp (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:07:45 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <417EBBD1.7090508@netapp.com> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: David Wysochanski Cc: Matt Domsch , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org > >it throws far too much things together, own type and object system, > >functions to deal with firmware. there's ill suited abstractions like > >the phba, etc.. > > > Sounds like you don't like the modelling. Keep in mind that a > lot of this came out of the T11 HBA API (for Fibre Channel HBAs > and FC storage management). Thus, the "phba" idea really fits > the model well. If you're thinking about it from a software > only perspective, with standard ethernet NICs, it does look > a little strange. If you browse the archives you'll find my opinion on the HBA API ;-)