From owner-freebsd-current Mon Aug 21 15: 2:37 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from guru.mired.org (zoom2-012.telepath.com [216.14.2.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 828CD37B424 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 15:02:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 55397 invoked by uid 100); 21 Aug 2000 22:01:20 -0000 From: Mike Meyer MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14753.42672.286077.409965@guru.mired.org> Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:01:20 -0500 (CDT) To: "Kenneth D. Merry" Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why no CDR ioctls for SCSI cds? In-Reply-To: <20000821104114.A67935@panzer.kdm.org> References: <14753.20681.165961.352066@guru.mired.org> <20000821104114.A67935@panzer.kdm.org> X-Mailer: VM 6.72 under 21.1 (patch 10) "Capitol Reef" XEmacs Lucid X-face: "5Mnwy%?j>IIV\)A=):rjWL~NB2aH[}Yq8Z=u~vJ`"(,&SiLvbbz2W`;h9L,Yg`+vb1>RG% *h+%X^n0EZd>TM8_IB;a8F?(Fb"lw'IgCoyM.[Lg#r\ Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Kenneth D. Merry writes: > On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 10:54:49 -0500, Mike Meyer wrote: > > I'm curious - is there some reason that the CDR ioctls (in > > /usr/include/sys/cdrio.h) aren't supported for MMC cds? It looks like > > doing them for MMC would be straightforward, it's the kind of thing > > that an OS is supposed to do, and it would allow people with MMC > > drives to cdrecord for the much (much, *much*) smaller burncd. > Well, doing that sort of thing for MMC-compliant CD-Rs will open the door > to doing it for all CD-Rs. No more so than has already been done by supporting SCSI cdrom at all. > We'd get a flood of mail saying things like "why isn't my froboz CD-R/WORM > supported with the cd(4) driver..." Which should actually be smaller than the flood of mail saying things like "why doesn't burncd support my nice, standard-compliant CD-R?" In fact, according to the documentation that comes with cdrecord, it would be *much* smaller, because all the SCSI CD-Rs released in the last few years have been MMC. > cdrecord supports a much wider variety of drives out of the box, it is > actively supported, and it works. Yup. Since it's native OS isn't FreeBSD, it wouldn't vanish even if we *did* put all of cdrecord in the kernel. I don't even see the port vanishing, because of the need to support legacy hardware. > If we put all of cdrecord's functionality into the kernel and burncd, it > would be just as big, or bigger than cdrecord is now. (Plus we'd be stuck > with maintaining it.) Correct. I'm not asking why cdrecord's functionality isn't in the kernel, and wouldn't argue that it should be. I'm asking why there isn't support for a widely deployed standard interface to this functionality when there's already a kernel API for it. If it's a matter of not wanting to maintain that little bit of code, I'm willing to do that.