From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:50:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:49:59 -0500 Received: from codepoet.org ([166.70.14.212]:18351 "EHLO winder.codepoet.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:49:51 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 21:49:53 -0700 From: Erik Andersen To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Jeff Garzik , LKML , Alan Cox Subject: Re: [patch] My AMD IDE driver, v2.7 Message-ID: <20020312044953.GB18857@codepoet.org> Reply-To: andersen@codepoet.org Mail-Followup-To: Erik Andersen , Linus Torvalds , Jeff Garzik , LKML , Alan Cox In-Reply-To:

Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.18-rmk1, Rebel-NetWinder(Intel StrongARM 110 rev 3), 185.95 BogoMips X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail. Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon Mar 11, 2002 at 07:58:32PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > If we can really do what sg.c does now, while at the _same_ time also have > a "ide-generic" module that uses the exact same infrastructure, then I > think I'm happy. Yes, the filtering is bus-specific (because the commands > are bus-specific), but the general approach is common. > > Does anybody find any real downsides to this approach or basically trying > to abstract sg.c "upwards" a bit? Essentially, if I understand what you are saying, you are looking for a uniform low-level mass-storage layer that does all the normal low-level drive access stuff. Presumably, if done correctly, this would act as a bus-abstracting foundation upon which the block layer could be built... -Erik -- Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/ --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--