From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: new scsi driver etiquette Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:56:03 +0000 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040109175603.A26708@infradead.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from phoenix.infradead.org ([213.86.99.234]:56073 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261953AbUAIR4Q (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:56:16 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from sleddog@us.ibm.com on Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:44:44AM -0600 List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Boutcher Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:44:44AM -0600, Dave Boutcher wrote: > > After the recent discussions on people bypassing the linux-scsi list > with their scsi code, I would not dream of such a faux pas. I'm about > to submit a bunch of code for your collective review. > > If I have a couple of big new driver files (e.g. 3500+ lines), what is > the most appropriate format for review? Just include them inline > in a mailing to the list? I'm not quite ready to send them as a > formal patch. url for a tarball is fine with me. actual submission should of course be a patch