On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > layer made it impossible for a driver writer to be nice to the user, so
> > instead they got their own major numbers.
>
> Not deficiencies in the SCSI layer, there is no way the scsi layer can
> handle high end raid controllers. In fact one of the reasons we can beat
> NT with some of these controllers is because NT does exactly what you
> suggest with scsi miniport driver hacks and it _sucks_. Its an ugly hack.
We could do this fairly _trivially_ today.
With absolutely no performance degradation.
With a simple "queue" mapping for the SCSI majors. Just look up which
queue to use for requests to which major, and you're done. The actual
IO may by-pass the SCSI layer altogether.
So I'm absolutely not advocating using the SCSI layer for the
high-end-disks. Rather the reverse. I'm advocating the SCSI layer not
hogging a major number, but letting low-level drivers get at _their_
requests directly.
Linus
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 31 2001 - 21:00:17 EST