From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: RFC: SCSI Generic version 4 interface Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 02:48:11 -0500 Message-ID: <45503A3B.5050107@garzik.org> References: <454FAD72.6040103@torque.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:29360 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752387AbWKGHsO (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Nov 2006 02:48:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: <454FAD72.6040103@torque.net> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: dougg@torque.net Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe 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. Jeff