From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] scsi fixes for 2.6.25-rc2 Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:44:45 -0800 Message-ID: <20080223124445.db779e3c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1203779614.3139.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <47C08134.2030205@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.13]:39672 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1764289AbYBWUpV (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:45:21 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Jeff Garzik , James Bottomley , linux-scsi , linux-kernel On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:31:02 -0800 (PST) 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. > Yes, I too think that adding new standalone code in late -rc is OK. Especially drivers, because a new driver is a bugfix for people who own that hardware!