From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Douglas Gilbert Subject: Re: [PATCH] procfs support for sgiwd93 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:22:48 +1000 Message-ID: <43538988.3000204@torque.net> References: <20051015013824.GA25248@linux-mips.org> <20051017104312.GB22710@infradead.org> Reply-To: dougg@torque.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from zorg.st.net.au ([203.16.233.9]:11479 "EHLO borg.st.net.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751181AbVJQLVt (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2005 07:21:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20051017104312.GB22710@infradead.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Ralf Baechle , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 02:38:24AM +0100, Ralf Baechle wrote: > >>FYI and reviewing pleassure. > > > NACK, no more new procfs support for scsi driver. James Bottomley, Is there any such policy? Christoph Hellwig previously has used this purported policy to reject scsi procfs bug fixes: "[PATCH] scsi: /proc/scsi/scsi patch for large number of devices" As for alternate tools to 'cat /proc/scsi/scsi', I am not aware of many distributions using lsscsi (debian and gentoo do), perhaps there are other tools. I suspect a lot of folks are still using 'cat /proc/scsi/scsi'. Does Christoph Hellwig have the right to NACK/veto etc work that is not his when you are the SCSI maintainer? Douglas Gilbert