Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760911AbZJIOIw (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:08:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758440AbZJIOIv (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:08:51 -0400 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:44438 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756670AbZJIOIu (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:08:50 -0400 Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] SCSI fixes for 2.6.32-rc3 From: James Bottomley To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Linus Torvalds , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Theodore Tso , Andrew Morton , linux-scsi , linux-kernel , Jing Huang In-Reply-To: <20091009091538.GA4154@elte.hu> References: <1254862442.4383.183.camel@mulgrave.site> <1255012399.4187.24.camel@mulgrave.site> <1255031298.4187.260.camel@mulgrave.site> <20091008210737.GD29181@mit.edu> <20091009091538.GA4154@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:08:07 -0500 Message-Id: <1255097287.2934.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 (2.26.3-1.fc11) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2188 Lines: 46 On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 11:15 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Theodore Tso wrote: > > > > > > So would it be acceptable to merge the 50 kloc of crap _during_ the > > > merge window? > > > > Yes. I actually looked at the driver (since I had pulled it - I've > > unpulled it but am still mulling it over), and while I think it looked > > huge and overly complex, it by no means gave me the kinds of vibes I > > get from some "obviously-ported-from-windows-with-no-clue" drivers. > > > > So at least from my quick look I didn't get the feeling that the > > driver was "evil". For me, it's a timing issue. I hate getting big > > pull requests after -rc1 is out, and I really don't like the feeling > > that people are just ignoring the merge window. > > > > That said, if somebody wants to look more closely at the driver, and > > then wants to convince people that it should have gone through > > "staging", feel free. But that's not what I've personally been arguing > > about. > > Greg, what's your take on the quality of this new driver? Do you have > some time to do a review of this with drivers/staging/ versus drivers/ > glasses on? The Git URI is at: To me, the matter of staging versus actual tree isn't a quality issue (otherwise we'd be shifting ~75% of SCSI drivers to staging, depending on whose view of "quality" was being used). It's an ABI issue. If we would have to change the user visible ABI while the driver was being cleaned up, I'd want it in staging to warn users to expect these problems. Although we couldn't clean up everything, I did make sure this driver plugs correctly into the standard linux FC ABI before putting it in the SCSI tree, so there are no ABI changes anticipated even though there will likely be a lot of code changes. Therefore, the correct clean up path for this one is through the SCSI tree. James -- 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/