From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luben Tuikov Subject: Re: ioctls, etc. (was Re: [PATCH 1/4] sas: add flag for locally attached PHYs) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:12:49 -0400 Message-ID: <43592FA1.8000206@adaptec.com> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20051021180455.GA6834@lst.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Jeff Garzik , andrew.patterson@hp.com, "Moore, Eric Dean" , jejb@steeleye.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel , Linus Torvalds List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On 10/21/05 14:04, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>How about this: Why not as a char device? > > you can implement a char device using the block layer. See > drivers/scsi/{ch.c,osst.c,sg.c,st.c} for examples. Christoph, you failed to see that my question was _rhetorical_. > 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". Luben -- http://linux.adaptec.com/sas/ http://www.adaptec.com/sas/