From owner-freebsd-scsi Sun Jul 23 13:55:56 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Received: from feral.com (feral.com [192.67.166.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C42F237B8E7 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 13:55:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mjacob@feral.com) Received: from beppo.feral.com (beppo [192.67.166.79]) by feral.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA22078; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 13:55:46 -0700 Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 13:55:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob Reply-To: mjacob@feral.com To: Soren Schmidt Cc: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai , scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: CAM layer In-Reply-To: <200007231934.VAA14095@freebsd.dk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Sender: owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Soren Schmidt wrote: > It seems Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: > > Is there anybody working on getting the CAM layer a bit less > > SCSI-specific in order to easily fold ATA under it so that we have a > > common access method, which CAM should be? >=20 > I've played a bit with having the ATAPI part use CAM, but the results > was not encouraging, having ATA devices use CAM is a different animal > and would probably require significant changes to CAM. What do you feel needs to change with FreeBSD's CAM implementation? > Another thing is the binary bloat CAM would add to an ATA/ATAPI > only system, and that is probably the most significant issue in > the projects I work on currently... >=20 > So, thats some of the reasons this falls further and further down > on my TODO list... >=20 >=20 > -S=F8ren >=20 >=20 > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message >=20 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message