On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 02:08:29PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote: > On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 13:55, Matthew Dharm wrote: > > > > My big complaint about that is that it's ugly. I would like to keep the > > device type as part of the filter command structure, so I can keep the call > > to scsi_filter_cmd() simple and easy to maintain. Maybe it's just me, but > > I think that editing the filter table with an extra field will be easier to > > get right than trying to maintain several different filter tables (for each > > device type). > > But that would reduce the power of the filter. At the moment you can > code "all devices apart from tapes" or "only disk and cdrom". If I add > it to the body of the filter, I either have to add a complex language to > express this or reduce the power. Neither seems to be particularly > optimal
Okay, I'll buy that.
> > I guess the real power of this filter is in the ability to add logic to
> > scsi_filter_exceptions()... but centralizing that seems contrary to the
> > idea of doing this on a per-HBA basis.
>
> The filter is just a language. HBAs don't need to use all the
> expressions in the exceptions, so unless it gets too big I don't see why
> necessary additions can't go centrally.
Eh. I'm not really convinced on this point (based on my past history of
trying to get patches into the SCSI subsystem), but I think that situation
is improving, so I'll just let it go.
Matt
--
Matthew Dharm Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver
God, root, what is difference?
-- Pitr
User Friendly, 11/11/1999
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
