[lkml]   [2005]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: ioctls, etc. (was Re: [PATCH 1/4] sas: add flag for locally attached PHYs)
    On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 18:19 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
    > On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 11:28:30AM -0400, Sergey Panov wrote:
    > > It is a mistake to think that you can not do a big rework and keep SCSI
    > > sub-system stable. You just have to make sure the OLD way is supported
    > > for as log as it is needed.
    > No. Rewriting something from scratch is horrible engineering practice.

    Most of the time. Besides "rework" is not necessarily "rewrite from
    scratch", most of the time it means "modification" of the existing

    > It's impossible to very huge changes, small incremental changes OTOH
    > allow easier planning, easier calculation of the risks and cost and most
    > import better test coverage. There's nothing specific to scsi or linux
    > kernel code about it. It'd suggest you read:

    Bad example -- just count number of lines in drivers/scsi/scsi*.c
    and in Netscape 4.0 and you'll see why.
    That does not mean I advocate throughing out current SCSI mid layer and
    writing a new one. As I can tell, no one on that list is proposing the
    "rewrite from scratch" approach.
    I just was trying to point out that Luben's transport "layers" in
    place of transport "modules-appendages" simplifies that

    > or various similar articles. Full scale rewrites almost never work
    > out.

    Sergey Panov


    I expressed my personal opinion and I am not speaking for anyone else.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-10-22 19:41    [W:0.021 / U:10.836 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site