From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964825AbWGUDTF (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:19:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964897AbWGUDTF (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:19:05 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:7963 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964825AbWGUDTE (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:19:04 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 05:18:55 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Jeff Garzik Cc: James Bottomley , Ed Lin , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , hch , linux-kernel , akpm , promise_linux Subject: Re: [PATCH] Promise 'stex' driver Message-ID: <20060721031855.GA31187@suse.de> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44C0436E.306@garzik.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. No punishment intended. -- Jens Axboe