From: Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com>
To: "Mukker, Atul" <Atulm@lsil.com>
Cc: "'Matt Domsch'" <Matt_Domsch@dell.com>,
"'Christoph Hellwig'" <hch@infradead.org>,
"'James Bottomley'" <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>,
"'Paul Wagland'" <paul@wagland.net>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@debian.org>,
"'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"'linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [SUBJECT CHANGE]: megaraid unified driver version 2.20.0.0-al pha1
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:43:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040226074317.GC32246@devserv.devel.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0E3FA95632D6D047BA649F95DAB60E57033BC3EA@exa-atlanta.se.lsil.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 928 bytes --]
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 06:05:43PM -0500, Mukker, Atul wrote:
> All,
>
> Thanks a lot for the valuable feedback. The general consensus is against a
> single driver for different class of controllers. This would put a strain on
> our applications, which expect all the controllers to be exported from
> single driver's private ioctl interface.
>
> With multiple adapters, applications would need to open multiple handles.
> This would somewhat complicate things for them. But keeping in line with
> general expectations, we would fork the drivers for different class of
> controllers now.
How much private ioctls do you need actually ? I assume that for sending raw
commands you use SG_IO already...
BTW it would be really nice if the various raid controller drivers could
come up with a joint common IOCTL api since it seems every raid controller
driver right now has a largely overlapping but yet different set of ioctls.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-26 7:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-25 23:05 [SUBJECT CHANGE]: megaraid unified driver version 2.20.0.0-al pha1 Mukker, Atul
2004-02-26 2:38 ` Jeff Garzik
2004-02-26 2:44 ` Matt Domsch
2004-02-26 7:43 ` Arjan van de Ven [this message]
2004-02-26 7:49 ` Jeff Garzik
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-03-19 22:17 Mukker, Atul
2004-03-19 22:26 ` Matthew Wilcox
2004-02-26 15:21 Mukker, Atul
2004-02-25 20:41 Mukker, Atul
2004-02-25 20:38 Mukker, Atul
2004-02-25 20:44 ` 'Christoph Hellwig'
2004-02-25 21:38 ` Matt Domsch
2004-02-26 2:27 ` Jeff Garzik
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040226074317.GC32246@devserv.devel.redhat.com \
--to=arjanv@redhat.com \
--cc=Atulm@lsil.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com \
--cc=Matt_Domsch@dell.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@wagland.net \
--cc=willy@debian.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox