Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:53:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: scsi@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: CAM layer Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009171152550.96334-100000@beppo.feral.com> In-Reply-To: <200008052348.RAA00812@caspian.plutotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> In article <Pine.BSF.4.10.10007291240540.67255-100000@beppo.feral.com> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0009171152550.96334-100000>