From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] scsi fixes for 2.6.25-rc2 Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:56:12 -0600 Message-ID: <1203800172.3139.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1203779614.3139.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <47C08134.2030205@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from accolon.hansenpartnership.com ([76.243.235.52]:55409 "EHLO accolon.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753235AbYBWU4Q (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:56:16 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Jeff Garzik , Andrew Morton , linux-scsi , linux-kernel On Sat, 2008-02-23 at 12:31 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > > I know I am probably shooting myself in the foot here, since I am the original > > author of mvsas, but... > > > > Should we be adding new drivers during -rc? > > I'm personally of the opinion that a new driver that doesn't add anything > but itself (ie no infrastructure changes etc) is fine. I'd rather have a > new, rough driver that might work, than no driver at all, and it's not > like it can cause a regression if you don't enable it. That is the case for this one. The two patches only touch the mvsas.c file (and Makefile and Kconfig to build it, of course). James