On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 04:36:06PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 18:05 +0200, greg@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:41:28PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > * Most SCSI drivers exist under drivers/scsi, including the virtio-scsi and > > > xen-scsifront drivers. So why has the visorhba driver been added under > > > unisys/visorhba? > > > > That's because right now it's still a staging driver. Also, there are > > other scsi drivers in other portions of the kernel tree (like the USB > > driver), so there's no hard rule that all scsi drivers have to be under > > drivers/scsi/ > > > > <snip> > > > > Please provide this review to them, on the properly mailing list, I'm > > sure they would be glad to get it. > > OK, I will do that. BTW, is there a written down version of the rules for > adding a driver under drivers/staging available somewhere? The only 2 rules for adding a new drivers/staging driver is: - has to compile - correct license and sometimes we let code in if the first one isn't true :) > As far as I can > see the visorhba driver went in without the linux-scsi mailing list having > been CC-ed. See also Benjamin Romer, [PATCH] staging: unisys: Add s-Par > visorhba, linux-driver-devel mailing list, July 2015 > (https://marc.info/?l=linux-driver-devel&m=143681271902628). That's totally normal, why would the scsi developers care about a staging driver in such a rough state. Only when it looks "good enough" would we ask for a scsi developer review to move it out of staging. hope this helps, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
