Re: bitkeeper / IDE cleanup

[Martin Dalecki <dalecki@evision-ventures.com>]

Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote:
> Andrew Morton writes:
> 
> 
>>fwiw, I prefer to not use bitkeeper, for the reasons which you outline.
>>
> 
> Seconded.
> 
> 
> Martin Dalecki writes:
> 
> : Disable configuration of the task file stuff.
> : It is going to go away and will be replaced by a truly abstract interface
> 
> Comment #1: Please observe the difference between cleanup and development.
>  I think your patches already went too far under the "cleanup" heading.

Plese note that the mail in wich I did send this particular patch didn't
contain the cleanup term. OK?

> Comment #2: We need a nice, general interface for the usual things,
>  and a very detailed direct-to-hardware interface for special purposes.
>  [Change the behaviour of a zip drive from "big floppy" to "removable disk"
>  and back. Take care of passwords on disks. Unstroke a 32+GB disk. Etc.]

Wen don't need "a nice general interface for the usual things". We need
the POSIX interface to them ;-).

However I agree that there is need for advanced features.
But first of all please notice that the
current "TASK FILE" code found there is not quite there. Second
please note that I would rather have a true lean *abstract* ioctl/sysctl
based interface to the really common things like spin down for example
and a tinny ioctl based interface for the people who love to break
hardware by software. Not quite what is there - the current taskfile
just tryes and fails (it's really hard to handle interrupts in user 
space) to map every single ATA-6 standard command to an ioctl().

The supposed validation of the commands prevents basically it's true
purpose as a back door for vendors loving to do things like controller
firmware updates through undefined commands.

I hope this makes my opinins clear.