From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161064AbWGUMNe (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:13:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161061AbWGUMNd (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:13:33 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:34341 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161060AbWGUMNc (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:13:32 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:13:06 +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: <20060721121306.GA25045@suse.de> References: <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> <20060721031855.GA31187@suse.de> <44C04F6F.2000906@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44C04F6F.2000906@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: > >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. > > Did you read the patch that started this thread? Promise has already > demonstrated they are willing to add changes requested by the community, > on top of an already-working driver. Alright, then lets just get it merged and hope it works out. -- Jens Axboe