[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] SCSI fixes for 2.6.32-rc3
    On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 20:54 +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
    > On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 08:58 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > >
    > > On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, James Bottomley wrote:
    > > >
    > > > This is mostly fixes. However, it contains two new drivers: Brocade SAS
    > > > (bfa), the Bladengine2 iSCSI (be2iscsi) under the merge window exemption
    > >
    > > Btw, I'm getting less excited about the merge window exemption.
    > >
    > > It makes sense for consumer devices that people actually hit and that are
    > > needed for bringup (ie they make a difference between a system that can be
    > > installed and used, and one that cannot), but I'm not at all sure it makes
    > > sense for things like this.
    > >
    > > The _reason_ for the driver exemption was the fact that even a broken
    > > driver is better than no driver at all for somebody who just can't get a
    > > working system without it, but that argument really goes away when the
    > > driver is so specialized that it's not about regular hardware any more.
    > OK, so I don't see a huge distinction here. This is a driver for a
    > piece of enterprise HW that Linux previously didn't support. To someone
    > cursing not being able to use there hardware, it's every bit as
    > important as the latest wireless driver.
    > > And the whole "driver exemption" seems to have become a by-word for "I can
    > > ignore the merge window for 50% of my code". Which makes me very tired of
    > > it if there aren't real advantages to real users.
    > While the exemption exists, I can certainly ignore the merge window for
    > new drivers, yes ... however, that's not 50% of the code submitted in
    > the merge window, and it's one time ... the same driver follows the
    > merge window for the next release. I try to police this pretty rigidly
    > in SCSI ... as you do at the top.
    > In fact, for SCSI, these two drivers are the third and fourth merge
    > window exemptions in our year long history of allowing this.
    > > So I'm seriously considering a "the driver has to be mass market and also
    > > actually matter to an install" rule for the exemption to be valid.
    > OK, so on the policy, let me argue against the above. One of the things
    > we've been saying about linux is that we facilitate rapid adoption of
    > new hardware (and that we support more hardware than any other OS). The
    > Merge window exemption was adopted at the kernel summit last year
    > specifically to speed our adoption of new hardware. I think it's
    > valuable for this speed of adoption to be *all* hardware, not
    > specifically mass market laptop type stuff.
    > However, even if you want to change the definition, can we please not do
    > it retroactively?

    So what do you want to do about this? I need the fixes in this tree to
    go forwards even if you don't want the new drivers ... I also now have a
    list of other fixes to put in the next round which I'd like to get into
    linux-next but while this is unresolved I can't really add more stuff to
    my rc-fixes tree.


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-10-08 16:39    [W:0.021 / U:21.052 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site