From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] convert libsas to the libata new eh Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:46:46 -0500 Message-ID: <4D405E06.5020400@garzik.org> References: <1295797260.3007.118.camel@mulgrave.site> <4D3F1CC6.5080208@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1296050931.4893.9.camel@mulgrave.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:54327 "EHLO mail-vw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753828Ab1AZRqu (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:46:50 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1296050931.4893.9.camel@mulgrave.site> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Brian King , linux-scsi , linux-ide , Robert Jennings , Wayne Boyer On 01/26/2011 09:08 AM, James Bottomley wrote: > I think better might be to move the eh thread functionality into block. > What libata really wants is one eh thread per phy. It gets this by [...] > machinery, everyone should get what they want, and libata could dispense > with its current corruption of multiple SCSI hosts per physical bus > attachment. That's not the whole picture. libata originally chose one-host-per-port because that winds up being the best queueing/queue-busy arrangement for legacy IDE ports. They behave quite similarly to independent controllers -- even to the point of having separate irqs -- even though multiple IDE ports are shoehorned into a single PCI device. Jeff