From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
To: dougg@torque.net
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] procfs support for sgiwd93
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:40:33 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1129758034.9618.14.camel@mulgrave> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43538988.3000204@torque.net>
On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 21:22 +1000, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> Is there any such policy?
Yes, there is. It's not actually mine, it's the direction coming out of
several kernel summits. /proc is to be moved back to handling process
information. /sys should be used for other ancillary information
exporting.
This policy can be interpreted with some elasticity depending on what an
author wants to do.
> Christoph Hellwig previously has used this purported policy
> to reject scsi procfs bug fixes:
> "[PATCH] scsi: /proc/scsi/scsi patch for large number of devices"
> As for alternate tools to 'cat /proc/scsi/scsi', I
> am not aware of many distributions using lsscsi (debian
> and gentoo do), perhaps there are other tools. I
> suspect a lot of folks are still using 'cat /proc/scsi/scsi'.
/proc/scsi/scsi has an awful lot of failure cases. The most annoying
one seems to be periodically losing hot added devices.
The reason for not fixing something if it's not a severe bug is simply
that if we keep /proc/scsi/scsi fully functional and up to date, then
the distributions will have no incentive to move away from it.
> Does Christoph Hellwig have the right to NACK/veto
> etc work that is not his when you are the SCSI maintainer?
Technically no-one truly gets a veto since there are many ways code can
end up in the vanilla kernel; however, everyone gets to express their
opinion ...
James
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-10-19 21:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-10-15 1:38 [PATCH] procfs support for sgiwd93 Ralf Baechle
2005-10-17 10:19 ` Arjan van de Ven
2005-10-17 10:55 ` Douglas Gilbert
2005-10-17 11:25 ` Arjan van de Ven
2005-10-17 10:43 ` Christoph Hellwig
2005-10-17 10:47 ` Ralf Baechle
2005-10-17 10:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2005-10-17 11:22 ` Douglas Gilbert
2005-10-19 21:40 ` James Bottomley [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-10-20 18:04 Ralf Baechle
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1129758034.9618.14.camel@mulgrave \
--to=james.bottomley@steeleye.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=dougg@torque.net \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).