[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:0.096 / U:2.220 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site