[lkml]   [2005]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: I request inclusion of SAS Transport Layer and AIC-94xx into the kernel


    I have to tip my hat to you sir.

    As much as I wanted to believe and tried to make it happen ... ATA/IDE was
    forced to design many exception case events. Regardless how hard I an
    others tried to invoke/create a driver to mimic the "SPEC", the hardware
    people broke most of the rules and each chipset was littered with
    exception cases.

    It has been 7 years since you and I started butting heads, and in the end
    both of us were right. A driver could be written to follow the standard
    exactly, and it would never work (alone, as-is) because the hardware was
    not paying attention the rules book.

    Hope you can kick back and laugh about the history, too!

    Have a great Day!

    Andre Hedrick
    LAD Storage Consulting Group

    On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:

    > On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
    > >
    > > a spec describes how the hw works... how we do the sw piece is up to
    > > us ;)
    > How we do the SW is indeed up to us, but I want to step in on your first
    > point.
    > Again.
    > A "spec" is close to useless. I have _never_ seen a spec that was both big
    > enough to be useful _and_ accurate.
    > And I have seen _lots_ of total crap work that was based on specs. It's
    > _the_ single worst way to write software, because it by definition means
    > that the software was written to match theory, not reality.
    > So there's two MAJOR reasons to avoid specs:
    > - they're dangerously wrong. Reality is different, and anybody who thinks
    > specs matter over reality should get out of kernel programming NOW.
    > When reality and specs clash, the spec has zero meaning. Zilch. Nada.
    > None.
    > It's like real science: if you have a theory that doesn't match
    > experiments, it doesn't matter _how_ much you like that theory. It's
    > wrong. You can use it as an approximation, but you MUST keep in mind
    > that it's an approximation.
    > - specs have an inevitably tendency to try to introduce abstractions
    > levels and wording and documentation policies that make sense for a
    > written spec. Trying to implement actual code off the spec leads to the
    > code looking and working like CRAP.
    > The classic example of this is the OSI network model protocols. Classic
    > spec-design, which had absolutely _zero_ relevance for the real world.
    > We still talk about the seven layers model, because it's a convenient
    > model for _discussion_, but that has absolutely zero to do with any
    > real-life software engineering. In other words, it's a way to _talk_
    > about things, not to implement them.
    > And that's important. Specs are a basis for _talking_about_ things. But
    > they are _not_ a basis for implementing software.
    > So please don't bother talking about specs. Real standards grow up
    > _despite_ specs, not thanks to them.
    > Linus
    > -
    > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
    > the body of a message to
    > More majordomo info at

    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: 2005-09-30 09:08    [W:0.032 / U:2.736 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site