Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:44:48 -0600
From:      Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>
To:        Alexander Best <alexbestms@wwu.de>
Cc:        Jaakko Heinonen <jh@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua>
Subject:   Re: Switchover to CAM ATA?
Message-ID:  <EFC65DFC-AED0-4CB3-AD0D-BB4859C0249A@samsco.org>
In-Reply-To: <permail-20100425102325f0889e84000077fa-a_best01@message-id.uni-muenster.de>
References:  <permail-20100425102325f0889e84000077fa-a_best01@message-id.uni-muenster.de>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 25, 2010, at 4:23 AM, Alexander Best wrote:
> Jaakko Heinonen schrieb am 2010-04-23:
>> On 2010-04-23, Alexander Best wrote:
>>> has anybody thought about adding scsi support to burncd(8)? i've
>>> been using
>>> ATA CAM for quite a while now and really love it. however i miss
>>> burncd(8).
>=20
>> I have thought about it. The mail I posted in December didn't
>> generate
>> any interest.
>=20
> i'm sorry i didn't notice your mail back then. i'm very interested in =
using
> burncd on a pass(4) device and would like to test any patches you may =
have.
>=20
> another option would be to have a ata(4)->cam(4)->ata(4) emulation. =
layer (the
> opposite of the current ATA_CAM option). that way all ata binaries =
would
> continue to work.  what /dev/ata* would be used for is to receive ata
> commands, convert them to cam commands and then send them to pass. i =
wrote a
> mail with the idea to freebsd-questions@, but also got no response =
[1].
>=20

Compatibility is a good thing, and I see nothing wrong with adding a =
simple ioctl module
to the pass or cd driver that achieves this.  The only thing that I'd =
worry about is that
there might be semantics to the old ata ioctls that rely on quirky =
operations of the old
ata driver.  It's really going to be counter-productive to try too hard =
to emulate the old
driver; the whole point of CAM_ATA is to move on from the sins of it.  =
Also, other than
burncd, what else exists to justify this emulation layer?  If it's just =
burncd, have you
considered writing a CAM-oriented replacement for it?  Maybe something =
that is as
versatile as cdrecord, but with an unencumbered BSD license so it can =
exist in the base
system?

Scott




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?EFC65DFC-AED0-4CB3-AD0D-BB4859C0249A>