From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261617AbUBYVmL (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:42:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261610AbUBYVla (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:41:30 -0500 Received: from lists.us.dell.com ([143.166.224.162]:44005 "EHLO lists.us.dell.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261604AbUBYVjA (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:39:00 -0500 Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:38:21 -0600 From: Matt Domsch To: "'Christoph Hellwig'" , "Mukker, Atul" , "'Arjan van de Ven'" , "'James Bottomley'" , "'Paul Wagland'" , Matthew Wilcox , "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" , "'linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org'" Subject: Re: [SUBJECT CHANGE]: megaraid unified driver version 2.20.0.0-al pha1 Message-ID: <20040225153821.C14838@lists.us.dell.com> References: <0E3FA95632D6D047BA649F95DAB60E57033BC3E7@exa-atlanta.se.lsil.com> <20040225204441.A9291@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20040225204441.A9291@infradead.org>; from hch@infradead.org on Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 08:44:41PM +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 08:44:41PM +0000, 'Christoph Hellwig' wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 03:38:48PM -0500, Mukker, Atul wrote: > > > of their own, e.g. mptraid > > Although, this simplifies the development and maintenance effort, having a > > single driver to drive both controllers or two independent drivers is not > > always our decision. Most often, it would be Dell's preference. > > Well, I think the people at Dell should get down from their fucking crackpipe > then. (Matt, did you hear that? please stop this kind of marketing driven > junk, thanks) Yes, I'll try to figure out where this request came from, if from anyone at Dell. My guess is it's related to other operating systems, over which I have no control, but isn't relevant to Linux. In general, I tend to fight exactly the opposite - people wanting drivers split out for "new technology" - say, PCI Express, when the driver<->firmware API hasn't changed, which is just wrong again. If it's got a different driver<->firmware API, then it needs a new driver. If it's the same API, then it should be the same driver. FWIW, I'm out of the office for the next couple weeks with a new baby, thus limited sleep and access to people, but I'll discover what I can, and will take the heat internally for saying "split the driver" if in fact you've got two different APIs, as I suspect you do. Thanks, Matt -- Matt Domsch Sr. Software Engineer, Lead Engineer Dell Linux Solutions linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux Linux on Dell mailing lists @ http://lists.us.dell.com