Re: BSG question

Jens Axboe
2004-09-16T06:06:47Z

On Thu, Sep 16 2004, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> In the "[PATCH] New QStor SATA/RAID Driver for 2.6.9-rc2"
> thread Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> > * if the userland interface is 100% sending cdbs or taskfiles, then I
> > would prefer that Jens Axboe's "bsg" be used. Its a chardev interface
> > for sending/receiving commands to a request queue.
>
> I played around with bsg
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=109160967927030&w=2
> about a month ago and it
> looked good (and I would like sg to evolve in that
> direction as well). My plan was to make a version of sg_dd
> from sg3_utils use it. However since it was a patch it is hard
> to keep in sync as kernel versions roll-out.
>
> Any chance of getting it into the main line kernel,
> on the quiet? Failing that, a web site with up to date
> patches.

(you should cc the author when you ask questions about the patch :-)

I'll try and set up a tree that gets regularly updated, if people are
interested in it. Last time I basically came to the conclusion that bsg
wasn't 'interesting enough'. SG_IO might not be a pretty interface (I
mean the ioctl, not the sg_io_hdr structure), but as long as you don't
require queueing or async io it works well enough. And that covers just
about 99.5% of the use of sg.

Current tree is at 2.6.8-rc3-bk'ish, I'll post an update later today.

> Various comments were made at the time
> of its release that a more 64/32 bit friendly version
> of struct sg_io_hdr was needed (this is for folks running
> 32 bits apps on a 64 bit architectures). As I pointed
> out struct sg_io_hdr was written with alternate interfaces
> in mind (i.e. its first field: 'int interface_id').

Yes, we could add a sg v4 header that would work fine on 32-bit apps on
64-bit hosts.

> bsg has one device node (i.e. "/dev/bsg") which users can
> open and then bind/attach to an existing block device
> node (e.g. /dev/sda). Extending this to bind to sysfs
> device paths might be handy as well for
> - (SCSI) devices that have an unsupported peripheral device
> type (e.g. SES)
> - other devices (e.g. SMP port of an SAS expander)

Yep. I suppose you would need a 'unknown' SCSI driver to attach
unsupported peripherals to for that to work transparently.

--
Jens Axboe