On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 19:28 -0800, Luben Tuikov wrote: > --- On Mon, 2/4/08, James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 18:01 -0800, Luben Tuikov wrote: > > > --- On Mon, 2/4/08, James Bottomley > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > The enclosure misc device is really > > just a > > > > library providing > > > > > > sysfs > > > > > > support for physical enclosure devices > > and their > > > > > > components. > > > > > > > > > > Who is the target audience/user of those > > facilities? > > > > > a) The kernel itself needing to read/write > > SES pages? > > > > > > > > That depends on the enclosure integration, but > > right at the > > > > moment, it > > > > doesn't > > > > > > Yes, I didn't suspect so. > > > > > > > > > > > > b) A user space application using sysfs to > > read/write > > > > > SES pages? > > > > > > > > Not an application so much as a user. The idea > > of sysfs is > > > > to allow > > > > users to get and set the information in addition > > to > > > > applications. > > > > > > Exactly the same argument stands for a user-space > > > application with a user-space library. > > > > > > This is the classical case of where it is better to > > > do this in user-space as opposed to the kernel. > > > > > > The kernel provides capability to access the SES > > > device. The user space application and library > > > provide interpretation and control. Thus if the > > > enclosure were upgraded, one doesn't need to > > > upgrade their kernel in order to utilize the new > > > capabilities of the SES device. Plus upgrading > > > a user-space application is a lot easier than > > > the kernel (and no reboot necessary). > > > > The implementation is modular, so it's remove and > > insert ... > > I guess the same could be said for STGT and SCST, right?
You mean both of their kernel pieces are modular? That's correct. > LOL, no seriously, this is unnecessary kernel bloat, > or rather at the wrong place (see below). > > > > > > Consider another thing: vendors would really like > > > unprecedented access to the SES device in the > > enclosure > > > so as your ses/enclosure code keeps state it would > > > get out of sync when vendor user-space enclosure > > > applications access (and modify) the SES device's > > > pages. > > > > The state model doesn't assume nothing else will alter > > the state. > > But it would be trivial exercise to show that an > inconsistent state can be had by modifying pages > of the SES device directly from userspace bypassing > your implementation. I don't think so ... if you actually look at the code, you'll see it doesn't really have persistent state for the enclosure. > > > You can test this yourself: submit a patch > > > that removes SES /dev/sgX support; advertise your > > > ses/class solution and watch the fun. > > > > > > > > At the moment SES device management is done > > via > > > > > an application (user-space) and a user-space > > library > > > > > used by the application and /dev/sgX to send > > SCSI > > > > > commands to the SES device. > > > > > > > > I must have missed that when I was looking for > > > > implementations; what's > > > > the URL? > > > > > > I'm not aware of any GPLed ones. That doesn't > > > necessarily mean that the best course of action is > > > to bloat the kernel. You can move your ses/enclosure > > > stuff to a user space application library > > > and thus start a GPLed one. > > > > Certainly ... patches welcome. > > I've non at the moment, plus I don't think you'd be > the point of contact for a user-space SES library. > Unless of course you've already started something up > on sourceforge. > > Really, such an effort already exists: it is called > sg_ses(8). > > > > > > > But, if we have non-scsi enclosures to integrate, > > that > > > > makes it harder > > > > for a user application because it has to know all > > the > > > > implementations. > > > > > > So does the kernel. And as I pointed out above, it > > > is a lot easier to upgrade a user-space application > > and > > > library than it is to upgrade a new kernel and having > > > to reboot the computer to run the new kernel. > > > > No, think again ... it's easy for SES based enclosures > > because they have > > a SCSI transport. We have no transport for SGPIO based > > enclosures nor > > for any of the other more esoteric ones. > > Yes, for which the transport layer, implements the > scsi device node for the SES device. It doesn't really > matter if the SCSI commands sent to the SES device go > over SGPIO or FC or SAS or Bluetooth or I2C, etc, the > transport layer can implement that and present the > /dev/sgX node. But it does matter if the enclosure device doesn't speak SCSI. SGPIO isn't a SCSI protocol ... it's a general purpose serial bus protocol. It's pretty simple and register based, but it might (or might not) be accessible via a SCSI bridge. > Case in point: the protocol FW running on the ASIC > provides this capability so really the LLDD would > only see a the pure SCSI SES or processor device and > register that with the kernel. At which point no new > kernel bloat is required. > > Your code doesn't quite do that at the moment as it > actually goes further in to read and present SES pages. > Ideally it would simply provide capability for transport > layers to register a SCSI device of type SES, or processor. Yes, it provides a glue between the enclosure services and the SES protocol. > Architecturally, the LLDD/transport layer would register > the SGPIO device on one end with the SGPIO layer and on > the other end as a SCSI SES/processpr device. After that > sg_ses(8) or sglib, fits the bill for user space applications. That's possible, but none of these layers exist yet ... although I think (assuming I can find a SGPIO enclosure) that SGPIO might be next. > > That's not to say it can't be done, but it does > > mean that it can't be > > completely userspace. > > See previous paragraph. > > > > > > > A sysfs framework on the other hand is a > > universal known > > > > thing for the > > > > user applications. > > > > > > So would a user-space ses library, a la libses.so. > > > > > > > > One could have a very good argument to not > > bloat > > > > > the kernel with this but leave it to a > > user-space > > > > > application and a library to do all this and > > > > > communicate with the SES device via the > > kernel's > > > > /dev/sgX. > > > > > > > > The same thing goes for other esoteric SCSI > > infrastructure > > > > pieces like > > > > cd changers. On the whole, given that ATA is > > asking for > > > > enclosure > > > > management in kernel, it makes sense to > > consolidate the > > > > infrastructure > > > > and a ses ULD is a very good test bed. > > > > > > What is wrong with exporting the SES device as > > /dev/sgX > > > and having a user-space application and library to > > > do all this? > > > > How do you transport the enclosure commands over /dev/sgX? > > Only SES has > > SCSI command encapsulation ... the rest won't even be > > SCSI targets ... > > What is the protocol of those "rest" that you talk about? At the moment it looks to be SES, SGPIO and AHCI. > At any rate, this capability lies in the kernel providing > a _device node_ -- not quite what your patch is doing. So your idea is to provide a separate interface per enclosure in kernel? Sure ... like I said patches welcome. I just did a common in-kernel interface that abstracts common enclosure services. James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html