Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932643AbVJCWFt (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:05:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932704AbVJCWFs (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:05:48 -0400 Received: from mail.autoweb.net ([198.172.237.26]:16302 "EHLO mail.autoweb.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932643AbVJCWFr (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:05:47 -0400 Subject: Re: I request inclusion of SAS Transport Layer and AIC-94xx into the kernel From: Ryan Anderson To: Tomasz =?iso-8859-2?Q?K=B3oczko?= Cc: Luben Tuikov , andrew.patterson@hp.com, Marcin Dalecki , "Salyzyn, Mark" , dougg@torque.net, Linus Torvalds , Luben Tuikov , SCSI Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: <547AF3BD0F3F0B4CBDC379BAC7E4189F01A9FA11@otce2k03.adaptec.com> <1128105594.10079.109.camel@bluto.andrew> <433D9035.6000504@adaptec.com> <1128111290.10079.147.camel@bluto.andrew> <433DA0DF.9080308@adaptec.com> <1128114950.10079.170.camel@bluto.andrew> <433DB5D7.3020806@adaptec.com> <9B90AC8A-A678-4FFE-B42D-796C8D87D65B@neostrada.pl> <4341381D.2060807@adaptec.com> <1128357350.10079.239.camel@bluto.andrew> <43415EC0.1010506@adaptec.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-lYZfKBnkTQpkkNuDH3l1" Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:04:35 -0400 Message-Id: <1128377075.23932.5.camel@ryan2.internal.autoweb.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1904 Lines: 52 --=-lYZfKBnkTQpkkNuDH3l1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 23:26 +0200, Tomasz K=B3oczko wrote: > If (cytation from Linus) "a 'spec' is close to useless" .. > Q: why the hell in kernel tree is included Documentation/ subdirectory ? > Is it raly content of this directory is "close to useless" or maybe it no= t > contains some specyfications ? :> Let me rephrase what Linus said, to help remove the misreading that seems so common today. I think a fair rewording would be, "A spec is a guideline. When it fails to match reality, continuing to follow it is a tremendous mistake." Additionally, I think the overall LKML feeling on hardware specs and the corresponding software abstractions to deal with it can be summarized something like this: When the spec provides a software design that doesn't fit into the overall structure of the Linux kernel, the spec should be treated as a suggestion for a software design. The *interface* that the spec documents should be followed, where it moves out of the overall structure, but internally, a design that fits into the Linux kernel is more important than following a spec that doesn't fit. --=20 Ryan Anderson AutoWeb Communications, Inc. email: ryan@autoweb.net --=-lYZfKBnkTQpkkNuDH3l1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDQarzIEfEr9d71YgRAnWLAKCS5Mjwkk2A6AfQ/FWYMjyl4cUJjQCeJP7r AHaVJ/elXKe3OrF136lWhQQ= =AzW1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-lYZfKBnkTQpkkNuDH3l1-- - 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/