From owner-freebsd-scsi Sun Sep 17 11:53:24 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 7B7D337B424; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:53:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from beppo.feral.com (beppo [192.67.166.79]) by feral.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04293; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:53:22 -0700 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:53:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob Reply-To: mjacob@feral.com To: "Justin T. Gibbs" Cc: scsi@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: CAM layer In-Reply-To: <200008052348.RAA00812@caspian.plutotech.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > In article you wrote: > > > > Well, the 'needs' was Justin's take on things. I'm not sure I agree. I tend to > > see ATA like I implement SAF-TE inside SES- SCSI/CAM is a superset of what ATA > > uses, although there are things in ANSI t13 committee that are not well > > represented within t10 (SCSI) yet but can be shoehorned in pretty easily. > > Regardless of how the person integrating ATA/ATAPI into CAM decides > to do this, I feel that the CAM layer should be separated out so that > additional protocol types can be grafted to the base. This gives the > implementer full flexibility to add support for a new stack in whichever > manner seems best. That's the approach that NetBSD and Solaris have (somewhat successfully) taken for their midlayers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message