On 08/20/05 05:18, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 04:32:15PM -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote:
>
>>>The current SAS class will only get validated when it actually meets
>>>real SAS topologies, which is acceptable in my view just to get this
>>>project actually moving; code can always be updated later ...
>>
>>James, the "current SAS class" _will_go_ into the kernel because:
>> - It is 3 vendor driven: LSI, Dell, HP.
>> - It is being developed by you and Christoph, the people
>>who decide what goes in or not.
>
>
> No, it will go in because it's the only class actually available.
>
> I'd still love to see any code from you posted publically. I've been
> forwarded in private some code you sent around to a few people at OLS,
Thats good, I was hoping that you'd get it.
> but you still can't be bothered to actually posting it publically. Not
C'mon Christoph -- no one more than me wants to see SCSI Core improved.
5 years ago because of iSCSI, now because of SAS.
It's not about "being bothered", it's just that it's not quite
finished yet.
> that even if my minimal code goes in now there's absolutely no reason
> we can't replace it completely later on. See the evolution of the FC
> transport class.
Who makes all those decisions?
More generally, why is SCSI Core not being managed by
Documentation/ManagingStyle?
Is it because there's so much vendor interest here?
Luben
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
