From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] QLogic qla2xxx driver update available (v8.00.00b4). Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 13:46:50 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030718134650.A28908@infradead.org> References: <20030718122304.A23013@infradead.org> <20030718121202.GC6520@marowsky-bree.de> <20030718131352.A26546@infradead.org> <20030718122622.GD6520@marowsky-bree.de> <20030718133404.A26784@infradead.org> <20030718124127.GF6520@marowsky-bree.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030718124127.GF6520@marowsky-bree.de>; from lmb@suse.de on Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 02:41:27PM +0200 To: Lars Marowsky-Bree Cc: Andrew Vasquez , Linux-Kernel , Linux-SCSI List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 02:41:27PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > However, while I agree about this being cruft in qla2xxx, it is _used_. And? LiS is used, too as are tons of hacks that have no chance of getting in mainline ever. > It's a driver / HBA feature which is actively deployed. I'd like to see > it go sooner than later, but by blocking this feature you preclude > those users of the driver from using the mainline one again, which is > the entire point of this exercise. > > Dropping such a feature needs some preparation to protect the users, and > isn't justified by the personal dislikes of myself or you I'm afraid > ;-) It's not about personal dislikes but about policies. If we allow qlogic to get their mpio code into the kernel there'll soon be more and more HBA vendors who do the same. And it's not like the code will vanish from earth if it's gone from the mainline driver, if SuSE wishes to patch it back in to protect the investments of their custorers (or insert random other CEO-speak here) they're free to patch in the mess again.