Message-ID: <4325CCFA.4060300@adaptec.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:46:18 -0400
From: Luben Tuikov <luben_tuikov@adaptec.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050716)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
CC: luben_tulkov@adaptec.com, SCSI Mailing List <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>,
       Luben Tuikov <luben_tuikov@adaptec.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.13 14/14] sas-class: SCSI Host glue
References: <20050910041218.29183.qmail@web51612.mail.yahoo.com> <1126357713.3222.149.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
In-Reply-To: <1126357713.3222.149.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2374
Lines: 90

Arjan,

You misspelled my email address:
It is not "luben_tulkov@adaptec.com",

It is "luben_tuikov@adatptec.com".

Thanks,
	Luben
P.S. I've added a CC to the correct address and left
the mistaken one in.


On 09/10/05 09:08, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>No self respecting SAS chip would not do 64 bit DMA, or have an sg tablesize
>>or any other limitation.
> 
> 
> yet... there will be :)
> 
>>Naturally, aic94xx has _no limitations_. :-)  But hey, our hardware just
>>kicks a*s!
> 
> 
> if it has no such limits then it indeed does!
> 
> 
> 
>>(Oh, I know, the solution you're paid to push into the kernel
>>doesn't need those since it does all SAS in the firmware.)
> 
> 
> I think you are way out of line here. James is very prudent in
> separating his job at SteelEye and his maintainership.
> 
> 
> 
>>Hmm, lets see:
>>I posted today, a _complete_ solution, 1000 years ahead of this
>>"embryonic SAS class" you speak of.
> 
> 
> yet you post this without having had ANY discussion or earlier reviews
> in the recent months. IN fact to the outside world it looks like you sat
> on this code for a long time for competative reasons and just posted it
> now that Christoph is getting his layer finished.
> 
> 
> 
>>Furthermore, why do you want to use a downgrade solution?
>>
>>The answer is simple:
>>   After "emd", Dell (Hi Matt!) learned quickly that if they want something
>>in SCSI Core, they have to hire the people who _make_the_decisions_ what
>>goes in and stays out of SCSI Core, to write that something, irrespectively
> 
> 
> well EMD's failure was 100% Adaptecs fault. Adaptec was warned EARLY ON
> that a dmraid like solution was going to be needed. It was just that
> Adaptec decided to ignore this advice (and focus only on 2.4 and ignore
> 2.6 entirely) that caused Adaptec to waste all the time and money on it.
>  
> 
> 
>>So as long as *you are on their payroll*, what are you discussing here
> 
> 
> James is paid by SteelEye. Not by Dell or LSI.
> 
> 
>>with me?  *You have an agenda*!
> 
> 
> so do you.
> 
> 
>>I long for the days of the previous maintainer.
> 
> 
> What previous maintainer?
> 
> 
> 

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/