From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Xose Vazquez Perez Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdth driver for 2.4.23-pre4 Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 19:47:25 +0100 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <3FFDA5BD.5000208@wanadoo.es> References: <3FFC5644.9060200@wanadoo.es> <20040108171314.A12595@infradead.org> <3FFDA08B.6030901@wanadoo.es> <20040108183317.A13824@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp14.eresmas.com ([62.81.235.114]:8671 "EHLO smtp14.eresmas.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265669AbUAHSsf (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:48:35 -0500 List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-scsi , Tosatti Christoph Hellwig wrote: > The update doesn't look like critical fixes. gdth not, but ask in Linux-Poweredge@dell.com about _aacraid_ driver stability and search in bugzilla.redhat.com about it. Or ask too to dpt_i2o or fusion customers > And if the vendors don't want to update their drivers that's the best > sign for possible customers to buy other hardware instead.. the truth is that they update the driver and the patch is real. But nobody cares for it. who is guilty? linux kernel maintainers or vendor driver maintainer ?