Re: [patch] My AMD IDE driver, v2.7

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> One solution may be to have the whole raw cmd thing as a loadable module, 
> and then I can make sure that it's not even available on the system so 
> that I have to do some work to find it, and somebody elses program won't 
> just know what to do.
> 
> But in that case is should be far removed from the IDE driver - it would 
> just be a module that inserts a raw request on the request queue, and NOT 
> inside some subsystem driver that I obviously want to have available all 
> the time.

Let me put this proposal in more specific terms and see who hollers..

First, the actual assumptions:
 - we should use the request queue, simply because that is the only thing 
   that serializes access to all controllers - if we do not have any 
   "sideband", there is no way to create the kind of confusion that we can
   create right now.

 - we want the approach to be generic, even if the details will end up 
   being IDE/SCSI/xxx-specific.

 - I personally believe that we want to be able to do filtering
   independently of the controller driver, ie the filtering is not part of
   the driver infrastructure at all, but at a higher level (ie the same 
   way network filtering has _nothing_ to do with any actual network
   drivers, regardless of what bus those drivers are on)

Thus I would suggest against a filter inside the IDE driver, and instead 
suggest a loadable module that does

 - attach to one or more request queue(s). Notice that you should not have
   _one_ module that handles all request queues, because the filter module
   obviously has to be different for an ATA disk than for a SCSI disk, and
   in fact it might be different for an IBM ATA disk than for a Maxtor ATA
   disk, for example.

 - the module basically acts the way the SCSI generic driver does right 
   now, except it acts on a higher level: instead of generating SCSI
   requests and feeding them directly to the driver with a scsi_do_req(), 
   it would generate the command requests and feed it to the request 
   queue.

   In fact, don't think of it as the ATA thing at all: I'm more thinking 
   along the lines of splitting up "sg.c" into the highlevel command 
   generator (the biggest part) and a very _small_ part in the scsi 
   request loop that understands about the generic command interface.

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?

		Linus