From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH] Promise 'stex' driver Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:52:15 -0400 Message-ID: <44C04F6F.2000906@garzik.org> References: <44BFF539.4000700@garzik.org> <1153439728.4754.19.camel@mulgrave> <44C01CD7.4030308@garzik.org> <20060721010724.GB24176@suse.de> <44C02D1E.4090206@garzik.org> <20060721013822.GA25504@suse.de> <44C037B3.4080707@garzik.org> <20060721023647.GA29220@suse.de> <44C0436E.306@garzik.org> <20060721031855.GA31187@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:14783 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030447AbWGUDwU (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:52:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20060721031855.GA31187@suse.de> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: James Bottomley , Ed Lin , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , hch , linux-kernel , akpm , promise_linux Jens Axboe wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> Jens Axboe wrote: >>> If I thought that it would ever be updated to use block tagging, I would >>> not care at all. The motivation to add it from the Promise end would be >>> zero, as it doesn't really bring any immediate improvements for them. So >>> it would have to be done by someone else, which means me or you. I don't >>> have the hardware to actually test it, so unless you do and would want >>> to do it, chances are looking slim :-) >>> >>> It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem, unfortunately. The block layer >>> tagging _should_ be _the_ way to do it, and as such could be labelled a >>> requirement. I know that's a bit harsh for the Promise folks, but >>> unfortunately someone has to pay the price... >> I think it's highly rude to presume that someone who has so-far been >> responsive, and responsible, will suddenly not be so. That is not the >> way to encourage vendors to join the Linux process. >> >> They set up an alias for Linux maintainer stuff and have been acting >> like a maintainer that will stick around. Why punish them for good >> behavior? >> > > I'm not trying to be rude to annyone, sorry if that is the impression > you got. I'm just looking at things realistically - the fact is that > moving to block layer tagging is not something that will benefit > Promise, so it'd be fairly low on their agenda of things to do. I don't > mean that in any rude sense, I can completely understand that position. > Why would you want to change something that works? Hence it's > reasonable to assume that eg you or I would eventually have to convert > it. Did you read the patch that started this thread? Promise has already demonstrated they are willing to add changes requested by the community, on top of an already-working driver. Jeff