From: Guido G. <ag...@si...> - 2006-04-13 17:44:27
|
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 01:35:56PM -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote: > Bruce Allen wrote: > >>> Still trying to get my head around what is happening here. > >>> If the cciss support is linux only then shouldn't the (passthrough) > >>> changes be isolated to os_linux.c or perhaps os_generic.c ? > >=20 > >=20 > >> Yes probably. Does any other os have the ioctl passthroughs for cciss, > >> Freebsd maybe? If so I'll stick it into os_generic.c otherwise into > >> os_linux.c. I'll wait for comments on that, I won't get around to fix > >> this before next week anyway since I'm away during the next couple of > >> days. > >=20 > >=20 > > Please DON'T put this in os_generic.c. That file exists ONLY to act as > > a TEMPLATE for developers who want to port smartmontools to a new > > platform. The only time the code in it is EVER called is when > > smartmontools is built on an unsupported platform. Perhaps it should be > > called os_unsupported.c or os_template.c > >=20 > > Sorry for shouting.... >=20 > Bruce, > Well I feel the same way about what is being proposed > for scsicmds.[hc] . Those files should not be touched > by this proposed addition. I'm in the process of rolling > a new version of the patch, it will compile but I have > no hardware to test it on. Not a problem. I can test this on cciss hardware and I'm certainly glad if you split things out of scsimcds.hc. Cheers, -- Guido |