From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] scsi fixes for 2.6.25-rc2 Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:53:14 -0500 Message-ID: <47C0B1EA.4010400@garzik.org> References: <1203779614.3139.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <47C08134.2030205@garzik.org> <20080223124445.db779e3c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> 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]:44115 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754766AbYBWXxS (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:53:18 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20080223124445.db779e3c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: Linus Torvalds , James Bottomley , linux-scsi , linux-kernel Andrew Morton wrote: > 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. ACK, thanks! Jeff