From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: please revert [PATCH] s390: zfcp act enhancements Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:54:44 +0100 Message-ID: <20041117145444.GA26717@lst.de> References: <20041116010130.771b4619.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.210]:56809 "EHLO mail.lst.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262335AbUKQOyz (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:54:55 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Martin Schwidefsky Cc: Andrew Morton , BOEBLINGEN LINUX390 , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org > 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.