Messages in this thread | | | From | Joerg Schilling <> | Date | Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:35:10 +0100 | Subject | Re: CD writing in future Linux (stirring up a hornets' nest) |
| |
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joerg, I don't see any sense in providing users with fake SCSI > lun and bus numbers for ATAPI devices. I think that what users > would like is the list of devices consisting of "fd" and actual vendor > name of device (+ optionally serial no + optionally "x:y:z" for real > SCSI). Nobody wants to see some artificial "x:y:z" for her/his > ATAPI device (it has always annoyed me in Windows), not to say > that the majority of desktop users have absolutely no idea of meaning > of these numbers.
This is called integration and it is done by Linux e.g. for 1394 and USB SCSI devices. So why not for ATAPI?
> * ide-* drivers for ATAPI devices are needed (some devices just doesn't > work with ide-scsi ATM) so please accept this fact that we cannot just > now simply switch over everything to using ide-scsi and we have to use > SG_IO ioctl for ide-cd (and ide-{floppy,tape} if anybody cares to add > support for it). I'm not saying this won't change in future but this requires > doing actual work and people seem to be more interested in discussing > stupid naming issues than doing it so...
Well, the problem with ide-scsi is not a general one but caused by a simple bug that needs to be fixed.
> > So why do people try to convince me that there is a need to avoid the standard > > SCSI protocol stack because a PC might have only ATAPI? > > SCSI protocol stack is far too Parallel SCSI centric (vide SAS flamewar). > Once again this is Linux problem which will get fixed with time or will fix > itself if we switch to libata for PATA.
If this is true for Linux, it should be fixed. But this is not a general problem.
> > Major OS implementations use a unique view on SCSI (MS-win [*], FreeBSD, Solaris, > > ...). Why do people believe that Linux needs to be different? What does it buy > > you to go this way? > > Linux needs to be better, no? ;-)
In case that Linux would offer better methods, I would not complain.
> > If the Linux folks could give technical based explanations for the questions > > from above and if they would create a new completely orthogonal view on SCSI [*] > > I had no problem. But up to now, the only answer was: "We do it this > > way because we do it this way". > > The answer is - we do this this way because of historical reasons and we > simply lack resources to change it immediately (be it your "everything is > SCSI" or mine "block layer devices claiming supported transport types").
This is obviously not true: There _was_ (and still is) a useful implementation with minor bugs. But instead of fixing the minor bugs, a lot of work has been done to introduce a new and unneded new interface.
Jörg
-- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |