[lkml]   [2010]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] [USB] UASP: USB Attached SCSI (UAS) protocol driver
    On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 06:26:56PM -0800, Luben Tuikov wrote:

    [Reflowed your text into 80 columns, you might want to look at your MUA
    configuration here.]

    > --- On Fri, 12/10/10, Alan Cox <> wrote:

    > > "Do you not see HOW DIFFERENT the two drivers are? Do you
    > > not see the
    > > difference in quality, presentation, etc, etc."
    > >
    > > I find the presentation *very* different. I'm rather
    > > worried about the
    > > manner in which it is being presented.

    > Wait a minute... So a commit patch is not enough any more? Code is not
    > enough anymore? Quick and knowledgeable responses are not enough
    > anymore?

    The issue here is with the kernel change and risk management processes
    rather than the code.

    Your new code adds a driver which replicates the functionality of an
    existing driver. We've had multiple implementations of the same
    functionality in the past. Usually what happens is that users and
    distros get confused and end up swapping randomly between the two
    different implemenations trading off the different bug and feature sets,
    which doesn't make anyone happy and there's a general idea that we
    should try to avoid that.

    This means that the 1000 foot review comment is what Greg has been
    telling you - the standard approach is to work on the existing code in
    place, incrementally making it better. This avoids the problem with bug
    tradeoff (as there's only ever one version in the kernel at once) and
    makes it much easier to isolate any new problems if they are introduced.

    Sometimes this isn't possible or a good idea for some reason, in which
    case the change should really explain that in the changelog (usually
    everyone involved will have some awareness of the issues already but a
    summary is useful for people picking up a new kernel release or
    similar). At the very least proposing such changes needs to involve
    some discussion of why a rewrite is required, and there needs to be some
    sort of plan for how everything should converge back onto a single
    implementation again.


    This is a good summary of what improvements the new driver brings
    (ideally more of it would have gone in the changelog), the missing bit
    is an explanation of why these issues can't be addressed with the usual
    process of incremental improvements to the existing code, discussion
    of how the existence of the two separate implementations would be
    resolved and discussion of the user visible impact of swapping to a new

    Bear in mind that all your changelog said originally was:

    | UASP: USB Attached SCSI (UAS) protocol driver

    | This driver allows you to connect to UAS devices
    | and use them as SCSI devices

    which doesn't say much more than that there's a new implementation of

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-12-13 19:43    [W:0.024 / U:7.504 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site