From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luben Tuikov Subject: Re: [PATCH] minimal SAS transport class Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 13:34:49 -0400 Message-ID: <430769B9.9080302@adaptec.com> References: <9BB4DECD4CFE6D43AA8EA8D768ED51C21D7A3A@xbl3.ma.emulex.com> <4304DBA1.4050900@pobox.com> <20050819140631.GB12485@lst.de> <43061C3C.2020303@adaptec.com> <20050819175459.GA16619@lst.de> <43061D57.9060201@adaptec.com> <20050819175929.GA5614@infradead.org> <43061FC9.8060301@adaptec.com> <1124481582.5130.88.camel@mulgrave> <430641CF.3070709@adaptec.com> <20050820091814.GB21698@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from magic.adaptec.com ([216.52.22.17]:62372 "EHLO magic.adaptec.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932590AbVHTRe4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Aug 2005 13:34:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20050820091814.GB21698@infradead.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: James Bottomley , Jeff Garzik , James.Smart@Emulex.Com, ltuikov@yahoo.com, Eric.Moore@lsil.com, andrew.patterson@hp.com, SCSI Mailing List On 08/20/05 05:18, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 04:32:15PM -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote: > >>>The current SAS class will only get validated when it actually meets >>>real SAS topologies, which is acceptable in my view just to get this >>>project actually moving; code can always be updated later ... >> >>James, the "current SAS class" _will_go_ into the kernel because: >> - It is 3 vendor driven: LSI, Dell, HP. >> - It is being developed by you and Christoph, the people >>who decide what goes in or not. > > > No, it will go in because it's the only class actually available. > > I'd still love to see any code from you posted publically. I've been > forwarded in private some code you sent around to a few people at OLS, Thats good, I was hoping that you'd get it. > but you still can't be bothered to actually posting it publically. Not C'mon Christoph -- no one more than me wants to see SCSI Core improved. 5 years ago because of iSCSI, now because of SAS. It's not about "being bothered", it's just that it's not quite finished yet. > that even if my minimal code goes in now there's absolutely no reason > we can't replace it completely later on. See the evolution of the FC > transport class. Who makes all those decisions? More generally, why is SCSI Core not being managed by Documentation/ManagingStyle? Is it because there's so much vendor interest here? Luben