On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 09:05:46PM +0100, Leo Weppelman wrote:
> On Tue 08 Dec 1998, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > >  > I'll do the work if the consensus is to have CAM in NetBSD. But I won't
> > >  > push for the decision.
> > > 
> > > The correct answer is "port is so it can be reasonably evaluated" :-)
> > > 
> > 
> > No, evaluate as to whether the technology and implementation is desirable
> > within NetBSD before someone goes to the substantial effort to get it into
> > NetBSD, only to find it doesn't meet with vox populi approval.
> > 
> 
> I think Matthew is right here. A major undertaking like this should be
> backed by 'core'. I think that 'core' should state something like:
>   - if it performs at least as well as the current system
>   - if it works at least as well as the current system wrt. error
>     recovery, command handling etc.

Let's add one here:
    - if it either coexists with the current system, or *all* host adapter
      and target drivers known to be in use (some are clearly "dead") with
      the current system are ported

> it will be accepted.

There appears to be a substantial issue even in FreeBSD (which runs on a
*lot* less hardware than we do) about "oddball" controllers not being
supported with CAM.  We may be somewhat better off here given the commonality
of code we've striven to achieve between different platforms using the same
host adapter chipset, but then again given the variety of platforms and SCSI
host adapters we support -- we're probably a lot worse off.

> Or 'core' should reject it before any real effort is made of course. I
> don't think the project can afford to _spill_ the amount of braincycles
> needed for a major overhawl of the SCSI system.
> 
> Just my fl. 0.02,
> 
> Leo.

-- 
Thor Lancelot Simon	                                      tls@rek.tjls.com
	"And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?"