From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: RFC: SCSI Generic version 4 interface Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 16:31:48 +0100 Message-ID: <20061107153147.GV19471@kernel.dk> References: <454FAD72.6040103@torque.net> <45503A3B.5050107@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([62.242.22.158]:40812 "EHLO kernel.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754050AbWKGP3h (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:29:37 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45503A3B.5050107@garzik.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: dougg@torque.net, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe On Tue, Nov 07 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Douglas Gilbert wrote: > >I was asked to put together a proposal in May this > >year for a new SCSI Generic interface structure. This > >is the same structure that is used by the block layer > >SG_IO ioctl. A few people have asked whether I had forgotten > >that I agreed to write the proposal. So here it is. Those > >who have seen it have made comments, some of which have > >been incorporated. > > > >Some shortcomings of the sg version 3 interface are: > > - can't handle commands with bidirectional data (either > > can the SCSI subsystem at the moment) > > - if it was a bit more general it could carry other > > request/response protocols (e.g. Task Management > > Functions and SMP in Serial Attached SCSI) > > - no way of associating a task attribute or task tag > > with a SCSI command > > Why avoid Jens Axboe's bsg? > > It seems like that is already a good interface for carrying other > req/resp protocols. I don't think Doug is avoiding that (if you are Doug, please do explain :-), but rather outlining the next generation command format that bsg should support for future use. -- Jens Axboe