Re: The survival of ide-scsi in 2.6.x

[Wakko Warner]

> I know that many feel that ide-scsi is useless, and should go away.
> And you are probably tired of message threads talking about it.
> Yet I ask respectfully that you hear me out, and give me feedback.
> 
> So can we agree to keep ide-scsi? I know it is not desired any
> more for cd writers. To avoid the problem reports from people who
> don't realize that and select ide-scsi anyway, we can refuse to
> attach to a cd-type device (today it just warns). And/or make a 
> new explicit module parameter to tell ide-scsi exactly which 
> drives to attach to.
> 
> Today, ide-scsi is buggy, and that needs fixing. The underlying
> problem is that ide-scsi stands with one leg in the IDE world and
> one leg in the SCSI world, which creates the challenge to make
> the IDE error recovery work in sync with, and under the direction of 
> the SCSI error handler.

I have a better idea (This may be sarcasm but maybe not).  Why don't we just
rip out all ide and scsi subsystems and make one general layer that both
physical ide and scsi systems share?

NOTE: I do not have any dealings with the code aspect of IDE and SCSI so I
don't know what would be involed (I don't see it happening anyway).

I've never been a fan of IDE, I dislike it completely.  I'd prefer to simply
buy an ide-scsi hardware converter and make all my drives scsi.  But that's
just me =)

I did find it funny that an IDE drive in a USB box is a SCSI drive under
linux.

Send flames to /dev/null not to the list, I don't want a flame war over
this.  I will not respond to any flames.

-- 
 Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/