From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Jeffery Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6] ips 2/2: minor fixes Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:13:01 -0500 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1074193981.607.51.camel@blackmagic> References: <1074188494.607.20.camel@blackmagic> <1074189041.1867.121.camel@mulgrave> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from magic.adaptec.com ([216.52.22.17]:48784 "EHLO magic.adaptec.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262838AbUAOTJn (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:09:43 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1074189041.1867.121.camel@mulgrave> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" On Thu, 2004-01-15 at 12:50, James Bottomley wrote: > I'll take this, but you are thinking about converting the driver away > from /proc to sysfs, aren't you? > > James Yes, long term I do. But not in the short term. Going forward, this driver is intended to cover 2.6 and become the source for future 2.4 driver updates. As support for 2.4 fades, at some point the 2.4 driver will split off and become critical fixes only. Until then, since sysfs doesn't exist in 2.4 I currently plan to keep using proc with a unified driver instead of having to go ahead and split 2.4 and 2.6 and perform dual maintenance. And I don't think anyone wants to add the sysfs code to a unified driver and then #ifdef in the proc code for 2.4 and #ifdef in the sysfs code for 2.6. That would be the ugliest solution. In summary, the current plan is to keep using the proc file for the next few releases. Once the 2.4 support goes into hard maintenance mode like the rest of the 2.4 kernel, the plan is to replace the proc code with sysfs. David Jeffery