Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751485AbdH1QoS (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Aug 2017 12:44:18 -0400 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:34211 "EHLO out2-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751203AbdH1QoQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Aug 2017 12:44:16 -0400 X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: raq4Wws9bAf3kWG+pzWngz/P11nNAR1gZgDTBmPm0rvU 1503938655 Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 18:44:20 +0200 From: "greg@kroah.com" To: Bart Van Assche Cc: "sfr@canb.auug.org.au" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "hare@suse.de" , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , "martin.petersen@oracle.com" , "sameer.wadgaonkar@unisys.com" Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi tree with the staging tree Message-ID: <20170828164420.GB16802@kroah.com> References: <20170828164127.15902025@canb.auug.org.au> <20170828064921.GA24696@kroah.com> <1503934884.2841.22.camel@wdc.com> <20170828160545.GA11231@kroah.com> <1503938165.2841.30.camel@wdc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1503938165.2841.30.camel@wdc.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1584 Lines: 38 On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 04:36:06PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 18:05 +0200, greg@kroah.com wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:41:28PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > * Most SCSI drivers exist under drivers/scsi, including the virtio-scsi and > > > xen-scsifront drivers. So why has the visorhba driver been added under > > > unisys/visorhba? > > > > That's because right now it's still a staging driver. Also, there are > > other scsi drivers in other portions of the kernel tree (like the USB > > driver), so there's no hard rule that all scsi drivers have to be under > > drivers/scsi/ > > > > > > > > Please provide this review to them, on the properly mailing list, I'm > > sure they would be glad to get it. > > OK, I will do that. BTW, is there a written down version of the rules for > adding a driver under drivers/staging available somewhere? The only 2 rules for adding a new drivers/staging driver is: - has to compile - correct license and sometimes we let code in if the first one isn't true :) > As far as I can > see the visorhba driver went in without the linux-scsi mailing list having > been CC-ed. See also Benjamin Romer, [PATCH] staging: unisys: Add s-Par > visorhba, linux-driver-devel mailing list, July 2015 > (https://marc.info/?l=linux-driver-devel&m=143681271902628). That's totally normal, why would the scsi developers care about a staging driver in such a rough state. Only when it looks "good enough" would we ask for a scsi developer review to move it out of staging. hope this helps, greg k-h