From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964799AbWBSBJp (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:09:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964797AbWBSBJp (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:09:45 -0500 Received: from smtp.enter.net ([216.193.128.24]:45065 "EHLO smtp.enter.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964799AbWBSBJo (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:09:44 -0500 From: "D. Hazelton" To: Bill Davidsen Subject: Re: CD writing in future Linux (stirring up a hornets' nest) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:10:01 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1 Cc: Joerg Schilling , mj@ucw.cz, nix@esperi.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chris@gnome-de.org, axboe@suse.de References: <787b0d920601241923k5cde2bfcs75b89360b8313b5b@mail.gmail.com> <43F0A319.nailKUSXT33MZ@burner> <43F7257D.80400@tmr.com> In-Reply-To: <43F7257D.80400@tmr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200602182010.02468.dhazelton@enter.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 18 February 2006 08:47, Bill Davidsen wrote: > Joerg Schilling wrote: > >Martin Mares wrote: > >>Hello! > >> > >>>The main problem is that there is no grant that a new model will survive > >>>a time frame that makes sense to implement support. > >> > >>I bet that it would take less time to implement this support than what > >>you spend here by arguing and trying to prove you are the only sane > >>person in the world. Unsuccessfully, of course. > > > >If memory serves me correctly, the current model is the 3rd incompatible > > one offerend within less than 5 years. > > With that I agree. Not only does the interface change, the details > within a given interface must change. At this point I seem to have stumbled across a document that has what Joerg might be looking for Linux to introduce. It's available at t10.org and is a translation layer specification for OS's to use if they want to access ATA devices like SCSI ones. Seems to me this wouldn't be a good or bad thing to add to the kernel. The problem is that introducing the layer and thereby unifying the SCSI and ATA busses into one namespace is a big task. I know I couldn't manage it, and don't think there are any people willing to take it on. Introducing it would provide a standard interface, however. DRH