Re: PATCH: cdrecord: avoiding scsi device numbering for ide devices

Joerg Schilling
2004-08-09T13:37:13Z

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2781 bytes --]

>From: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>

>On Mon, Aug 09 2004, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> >From axboe@suse.de Fri Aug 6 17:10:35 2004
>>
>> >> Let me give you a short answer: If DMA creates so many problem on Linux,
>> >> how about imlementing a generic DMA abstraction layer like Solaris does?
>>
>> >We do have that. But suddenly changing the alignment and length
>> >restrictions on issuing dma to a device in the _end_ of a stable series
>> >does not exactly fill me with joyful expectations. It's simply that,
>> >not lack of infrastructure.
>>
>> If you _really_ _had_ a DMA abstraction layer, then ide-scsi would use
>> DMA for all sector sizes a CD may have. The fact that ide-scsi does
>> not use DMA easily proves that you are wrong.

>For someone who apparently doesn't even bother to look at the source,
>it's hard to discuss these things. "DMA abstraction layer" continues
>your fine history of being deliberatly vague in that it can mean
>basically anything or nothing.

In case you don't know what DMA abstraction is:

DMA abstraction includes everything that is going to be done to set up
DMA after the buffer address and the size is known.

If you were true and Linux would include _and_ use DMA abstraction, then
we would have DMA with ide-scsi for all CD sector sizes.

>> AGAIN: if you believe you did invent a better method, _describe_ it.
>> As you did not describe a _working_ method different from the one I
>> request, you need to agree that you are wrong - as long as your
>> description is missing.

>I did not invent a better method, but one exists - in Linux this is the
>device special file.

Interesting: tell us more about how Linux handles kernel user interfaces by
using a device special file instead of including the same include file
in the kernel code as well as in the applicatin code?

>> I am able to distinct between something that only looks like a kernel
>> problem and something that really is a kernel problem. As long as you

>You've already shown that statement to be false many times in this
>thread.

YOu have only shown that you in many caes try to ignoore the truth ;-(

>Listen, you silly little man: if you want things fixed in the kernel,
>you provide a patch. Understand that concept?

Listen arrogant little man: I have enough to to with writing free software.
I report bugs and if you are the author, you fix your bugs or I need to tell
the users of your software that you are unwilling to maintain your software.

Jörg

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily