On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 03:49:33PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > I consider it not a new feature, but a missing feature, since otherwise > > user data cannot be accessed in the RAID setups. > > the same is true for all new hardware drivers and hardware support > patches. And for new DRM (since new X may need it) and new .. and > new ... where is the line? > > for me a deep maintenance mode is about keeping existing stuff working; > all new hw support and derivative hardware support (such as this) can be > pointed at the new stable series... which has been out for quite some > time now..
I personally dislike and discourage the addition of ANY new drivers to v2.4 at this point, and I sincerely appreciate every argument against iswraid, but I have no problems with it because it looks like a valid special case since it allows users to access their ICH5/6 RAID partitions, as Jeff mentions. Moreover the driver is going to die with v2.4 anyway, its not like any future compatibility problem is being introduced. So I understand the argument against having it in the tree: the elegant way of doing it is to use dmraid. But I dont buy it as an argument against merging it in a dying v2.4.x tree which purpose is to serve existing users. You are mistaken in arguing that "oh, since this driver can be merged, its likely that any v2.6 HW support/driver will be accepted in v2.4". So, its up to Jeff, and he seems to be OK with it. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
