Re: Let's get rid of ide-scsi

Alex Davis
2006-02-10T06:03:34Z

--- Wakko Warner <wakko@animx.eu.org> wrote:

> Alex Davis wrote:
> > I think we should get rid of ide-scsi.
> >
> > Reasons:
> > 1) It's broken.
> > 2) It's unmaintained.
> > 3) It's unneeded.
> >
> > I'll submit a patch if people agree.
> >
> > I code, therefore I am
>
> I personally do not agree with this. I worked on at boot disk(floppy) which
> contained the kernel and modules to find a cdrom (or usb disk) and use it as
> my 2nd stage. If I had to use ide-cd, I would not beable to do my first
> stage loader on a single floppy (I support ide and scsi cdroms via sr-mod).
>
> ide-cd.ko is > than sr-mod.ko + ide-scsi.ko
>
> I am aware that scsi_mod.ko is larger than those 3 combined and I still need
> it regardless for usb.
>
> My personal vote would be to drop the entire ide subsystem which would thus
> drop ide-scsi. The SCSI layer has been a general block device layer for
> more than true scsi devices. USB, Firewire, and SATA use the scsi layer.
> And as I understand it, libata is starting to handle PATA devices. Once it
> can handle PATA fine, the ide code would pretty much be useless.
>
> I am also against the seperate USB block layer, I personally saw no use in
> it.
>
> --
> Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals
> Got Gas???
>

Wakko:

Modules can be compressed: On a 2.6.15 kernel doing a 'gzip -9 idecd.ko' reduced its size
from 43616 bytes to 19234 bytes. The only additional step is modifying 'modules.dep' and
changing idecd.ko to idecd.ko.gz. You now have a fully functional ide cdrom driver.

I code, therefore I am

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around