From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: ioctls, etc. (was Re: [PATCH 1/4] sas: add flag for locally attached PHYs) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:20:09 -0600 Message-ID: <20051021182009.GA3364@parisc-linux.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> <43583A53.2090904@pobox.com> <435929FD.4070304@adaptec.com> <20051021180455.GA6834@lst.de> <43592FA1.8000206@adaptec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:14474 "EHLO palinux.hppa") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965072AbVJUSUM (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:20:12 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43592FA1.8000206@adaptec.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Luben Tuikov Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Jeff Garzik , andrew.patterson@hp.com, "Moore, Eric Dean" , jejb@steeleye.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel , Linus Torvalds On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 02:12:49PM -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote: > > That beeing said I tried this approach. It looks pretty cool when you > > think about it, but the block layer is quite a bit too heavyweight for > > queueing up a few SMP requests, and we need to carry too much useless > > code around for it. > > That's the last reason not to implement SMP as a block device. > But this is good that you tried it and it "flopped". This way > people will stop repeating "SMP... block device". Block layer != Block device. Nobody wants to implement SMP as a block device. The question is whether the SMP interface should be implemented as part of the block layer.