From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vladislav Bolkhovitin Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/19]: SCST SYSFS interface implementation Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 23:39:17 +0300 Message-ID: <4CE19A75.7040600@vlnb.net> References: <20101109002829.GA22633@kroah.com> <4CD9A9B8.70708@vlnb.net> <4CDA6CD4.3010308@panasas.com> <4CDAFE6E.7050200@vlnb.net> <4CDBBE80.40908@panasas.com> <4CDC56F9.9040601@vlnb.net> <20101112012315.GE17097@core.coreip.homeip.net> <4CDEC8D2.8080101@vlnb.net> <20101113235938.GA1827@kroah.com> <4CE1017E.4090409@panasas.com> <20101115161620.GB5981@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.186]:62523 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758226Ab0KOUkA (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Nov 2010 15:40:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20101115161620.GB5981@kroah.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Greg KH Cc: Boaz Harrosh , Dmitry Torokhov , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, scst-devel , James Bottomley , Andrew Morton , FUJITA Tomonori , Mike Christie , Vu Pham , Bart Van Assche , James Smart , Joe Eykholt , Andy Yan , Chetan Loke , Hannes Reinecke , Richard Sharpe , Daniel Henrique Debonzi Greg KH, on 11/15/2010 07:16 PM wrote: > Why, I'm not allowed to get frustrated at repeated attempts to get the > original poster to change their code to something that is acceptable and > just give up and walk away? > > Why not? Hmm, frankly, I decided that you agreed with my arguments.. As I wrote, I'm willing to make any changes you requests. I only asked why this should be done. I really don't understand why we and other similar in-kernel developers should treat kobjects in the different way than any other subobjects of our outer objects and make for them _additional code_ to specially treat them as life-time center (http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/11/10/421)? You have not explained it anywhere in any doc I can find. This is just small "why" question. Greg, don't we have a right to ask this before go on? >> This project, even though out-of-tree, is an old and mature project that >> has many users. These are all *Linux* users. The authors and community >> have come to us for help, and advice on making this code acceptable for >> mainline and hardening the code the way, only one project on the planet >> can do, the Linux community. I think it is our courtesy and obligation >> to the Linux users of this Project to comment where they are doing wrong >> and where they should do better. > > It is also the job of the kernel community to say "No, what you are > doing is wrong, please don't do that." > > And that's what I'm doing here. > >> It is not of their choice to be out-of-tree. It is ours. The least we can >> do. Is give then some assistance if we can, and have 5 minutes of our time. > > I have given _way_ more than 5 minutes of my time already. We appreciated it very much. >> All these issues we were discussing are interesting and are real Kernel >> problems. For instance the last comment you made was that for such a dynamic >> system and life time problems, and functionality. A better and expected >> solution might be the device tree and not sysfs. > > Yes, that is what I have been saying for a while now. > > Again: > This code is using kobjects incorrectly. > This code should not be using kobjects. > > this is my last response to this thread now, and I'm sure you can > understand why. It is REALLY frustrating you are refusing to explain why. I guess, I'm too stupid to figure out that alone. Don't you want we rise as highly skilled kernel developers? I believe, not only SCST developers are very interested to know background behind particular moves in the kernel. Thanks, Vlad