Alan Cox wrote:
>>No quite my plan is:
>>
>>1. Rip it off.
>>2. Reimplement stuff if and only if someone really shows pressure
>>for using it.
>>
>>The "command parsing" excess is certainly going to go.
>>
>
> Its maybe handy actually. Without command parsing I can tell the drive to
> do anything without good control - you know say like all the upcoming SSSCA
> encrypt chunks of your harddisk so you can never get them back stuff.
>
> The important bit is that for each command you must know the sequence of
> phases. Get it wrong and your storage system goes off to visit undefined
> states. I don't like my disks in undefined states because it tends to leave
> them with undefined content.
>
> Two things I do think wants considering
>
> #1 Can the same thing be done by passing the command and sequence of
> transitions from user space (scsi generic takes that approach but
> scsi is a little more forgiving since the bogus transition will
> screw your command in a "oh whoops" detectable manner). IDE
> has a nice habit of explaining you screwed up by scribbling on
> the disk and/or locking solid
>
> #2 Shoot all the little routines and make them into a table.
>
> That would tidy it no end.
I will just try the aproach 2 first.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 07 2002 - 21:00:53 EST