lkml.org 
[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
From
Date
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.

James




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-08 16:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans