From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756037AbXLLAYY (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:24:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751941AbXLLAYP (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:24:15 -0500 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:51234 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751901AbXLLAYO (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:24:14 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:24:08 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: recalljeffchang@gmail.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH acs_ame scsi driver 000 of 1] Introduction Message-Id: <20071211162408.54544ec3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20071210165548.GC26334@parisc-linux.org> References: <87d84fba0712092003h3eb90344o89f9b0bc9c65fdb7@mail.gmail.com> <20071210165548.GC26334@parisc-linux.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:55:48 -0700 Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 12:03:18PM +0800, chang jeff wrote: > > Dear Sir, > > > > Following is patche for scsi driver in 2.6.23.9 what should get into > > 2.6.23.9-final if possible. > > > > First refines a newly created scsi driver > > (/[kernel-version]/driver/scsi/acs_ame). > > > > Thanks, > > JeffChang. > > Hi Jeff, > > You don't seem to have attached the driver ... maybe you sent a second > email that hasn't arrived yet? I see Andrew sent a mail (possibly to > one of your colleagues?) that explains that he doesn't personally take > scsi driver patches: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/30/7 > Well, I'll pass an eye over them and will queue them up for a bit or review-and-test if it looks like they're being neglected. However I can't queue this one because a) it's wordwrapped and b) there are patches in -mm which remove scsi_cmnd.request_buffer (and probably other things). But that doesn't prevent scsi developers from performing code review.