From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luben Tuikov Subject: Re: Serial Attached SCSI Driver Interface (SDI) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:29:13 -0500 Message-ID: <4198F579.9080606@adaptec.com> References: <60807403EABEB443939A5A7AA8A7458B5C0F3D@otce2k01.adaptec.com> <4198EF00.2010305@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from magic.adaptec.com ([216.52.22.17]:22408 "EHLO magic.adaptec.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261648AbUKOS33 (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:29:29 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4198EF00.2010305@pobox.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: "Salyzyn, Mark" , SCSI Mailing List , Eric.Moore@lsil.com Jeff Garzik wrote: > ug. > > These ioctl mechanisms almost always (a) have design flaws [which cannot > be corrected, since they are in a spec] and (b) duplicate other > functionality of the Linux kernel. The SNIA ioctl mess is a great > example of this. > > Without any additional info, my first reaction is that this is yet more > stuff Linux doesn't need. I don't want to speculate on whether it will or not be an ioctl mechanism. But most importantly, by architecture design, SAS really _needs_ a control management infrastructure of its components and _maybe_ a representation somewhere in the OS. Since it really represents a "storage network" and in certain instances a complicated one at that. That control management infrastructure would be shared by (used by both) the OS and the kernel (for the appropriate functionaly needed/provided). I've just got official word that SDI would be "the industry standard version of CSMI". It's a good thing, Luben