Re: please revert [PATCH] s390: zfcp act enhancements

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>]

> I talked with the scsi people about the exports. And yes, the intent for
> adding these exports has been to allow the hba abi in its current form to
> work with a single add-on module. We know that this is a dead-end path but
> they (our scsi folks) want to have a working solution now.

That's not how Linux works.  LLDDs are not supposed to add APIs,
especially not that bad ones.

> The standard
> answer to that usually is that the real solution takes as long as it takes.
> We find ourselves in between these two positions. Not a good place to be.
> 
> > > If IBM wants to support a managment API for their FC adapter they should
> > > participate in the FC transport class development.
> > >
> > > I also want to protest that IBM sends scsi LLDD updates not via
> > > linux-scsi *AGAIN*.
> 
> Mea culpa, this has been my fault. This addresses a question that bothers
> me for some time: should zfcp updates go over the arch line to -bk or would
> it be better to push ALL zfcp updates via linux-scsi and the scsi maintainers.
> I don't really understand in detail what the heck the scsi code is doing.

changes to scsi LLDDs should always go via linux-scsi.