From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0418C433E0 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 20:30:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11B712078D for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 20:30:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.b="W1sBeQ80"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.b="MYUprjVW" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 11B712078D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=HansenPartnership.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49mfwb72GmzDqvN for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 06:30:55 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=hansenpartnership.com (client-ip=66.63.167.143; helo=bedivere.hansenpartnership.com; envelope-from=james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=HansenPartnership.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20151216 header.b=W1sBeQ80; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20151216 header.b=MYUprjVW; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [66.63.167.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49mftD5bttzDqdV for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 06:28:52 +1000 (AEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C71AB8EE1E9; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 08:34:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1592321671; bh=ajob1nvDrla9Bt+f3LFtU00Hic0WFbZIYozt4cm3MGM=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=W1sBeQ80o/S7QYGmkg7NPKLODl9DIayewfvNHRL0KXkV4cKwIIId31zNmJSXEAOn8 PmIczVXVyJ+XHkmj/F4XEVAvG601VQw6E+e3d1SlKbqVhn8CvXKJZo57Nbz5w9m9k9 Fk0B2hGn7EnmgCplAjGFyBu8ncCam1gBtEW7wy9I= Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e-XsTU0ZWdDv; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 08:34:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jarvis (unknown [216.116.10.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FE348EE188; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 08:34:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1592321670; bh=ajob1nvDrla9Bt+f3LFtU00Hic0WFbZIYozt4cm3MGM=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=MYUprjVWr66NFNYQM4jxBy/5blzUQem+8Me7nmbSL8D6xUxpHQ1bYjYJWGDOSQFMP 0TrdM6NHXmZUCNnf60cYcNDgiCRbFbF2pklcj6OPtPybkwoQ7Zez969xlVSVJzMk5+ XhrYEFkvrYKP8ysOE/5zvYdq13fP6HbGfoQDNx8k= Message-ID: <1592321667.4394.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: target/sbp: remove firewire SBP target driver From: James Bottomley To: Johannes Thumshirn , Bart Van Assche , Finn Thain , Chris Boot Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 08:34:27 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <01020172acd3d10f-3964f076-a820-43fc-9494-3f3946e9b7b5-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com> <7ad14946-5c25-fc49-1e48-72d37a607832@boo.tc> <8da0c285-d707-a3d2-063e-472af5cc560f@boo.tc> <8cbab988-fba7-8e27-7faf-9f7aa36ca235@acm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "Martin K . Petersen" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , Chuhong Yuan , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Nicholas Bellinger , "target-devel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux1394-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , Stefan Richter Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Tue, 2020-06-16 at 14:13 +0000, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > On 16/06/2020 16:09, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > On 2020-06-16 02:42, Finn Thain wrote: > > > Martin said, "I'd appreciate a patch to remove it" > > > > > > And Bart said, "do you want to keep this driver in the kernel > > > tree?" > > > > > > AFAICT both comments are quite ambiguous. I don't see an > > > actionable request, just an expression of interest from people > > > doing their jobs. > > > > > > Note well: there is no pay check associated with having a > > > MAINTAINERS file > > > entry. > > > > Hi Finn, > > > > As far as I know the sbp driver only has had one user ever and that > > user is no longer user the sbp driver. So why to keep it in the > > kernel tree? Restoring a kernel driver can be easy - the first step > > is a "git revert". > > Why not move the driver to drivers/staging for 2 or 3 kernel releases > and if noone steps up, delete it? Because that's pretty much the worst of all worlds: If the driver is simply going orphaned it can stay where it is to avoid confusion. If it's being removed, it's better to remove it from where it is because that makes the patch to restore it easy to find. Chris, the thing is this: if this driver has just one user on a stable distro who complains about its removal six months to two years from now, Linus will descend on us from a great height (which won't matter to you, since you'll be long gone). This makes everyone very wary of outright removal. If you're really, really sure it has no users, it can be deleted, but if there's the slightest chance it has just one, it should get orphaned. James