Re: [PATCH] enclosure: add support for enclosure services

[James Bottomley]

On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 11:33 -0800, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> > Wrong ... we don't export non-SCSI devices as SCSI
> > (with the single and
> > rather annoying exception of ATA via SAT).
> 
> I didn't say you should do that.  I had already
> mentioned that vendors export such controls
> as either enclosure or processor type devices,
> and this is why I told you that that is what
> needs to be exported, which incidentally is
> a device node of that type.
> 
> Without a common usage model already in the kernel
> to abstract (e.g. sd for block device, since you brought
> that up) your abstraction seems redundant and arbitrary.

Exactly, so the first patch in this series (a while ago now) was a
common usage model abstraction of enclosures, and the second was an
implementation in terms of SES.   I will do one in terms of SGPIO as
well ... assuming I ever find a SGPIO enclosure ...

> Your kernel code already uses READ DIAGNOSTIC, etc,
> and I'd rather leave that to user-space.

You can do it in user space as well.  It's just a bit difficult to get
information out of a SES enclosure without using it, and getting some of
the information is a requirement of the abstraction.

James


--
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/