From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Bart Van Assche" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.25.1] Add scsi_execute_async_fifo() Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 18:23:08 +0200 Message-ID: References: <200805021638.42972.bart.vanassche@gmail.com> <20080502153306.GB7376@infradead.org> <20080502155525.GA16353@infradead.org> <20080502161629.GF14976@parisc-linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.155]:49453 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934509AbYEBQXK (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2008 12:23:10 -0400 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 19so981679fgg.17 for ; Fri, 02 May 2008 09:23:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20080502161629.GF14976@parisc-linux.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Christoph Hellwig , James Bottomley , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Vladislav Bolkhovitin , scst-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 06:06:59PM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote: >> James Bottomley clearly expressed in that thread that he doesn't want >> to maintain two SCSI target frameworks. So what I propose is that SCST >> is included in the mainline and afterwards that it is evaluated >> whether or not it is desirable to keep other target code in the >> mainline kernel. > > That's not the way it works, sorry. > > The way to get SCST in is to work with the people who care about target > frameworks (which doesn't include me, fwiw). You come to a consensus > about the way to proceed. Normally this will be a gradual migration of > the good bits from SCST into the kernel. In *exceptional* circumstances, > we've replaced one piece of infrastructure with another (eg wireless > midlayers), but those are by no means the preferred ways to go. > > Let me just re-emphasise this bit. You HAVE to work with the existing > people. If you can't come to a common understanding, your code won't > get in. Even if it's better. Which target code is already in the mainline kernel, and who are the maintainers for this code ? I checked the MAINTAINERS file in the 2.6.25 tarball, but in this file I could not find the information I was looking for. Bart.