On 08/20/05 05:18, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 04:32:15PM -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote: > >>>The current SAS class will only get validated when it actually meets >>>real SAS topologies, which is acceptable in my view just to get this >>>project actually moving; code can always be updated later ... >> >>James, the "current SAS class" _will_go_ into the kernel because: >> - It is 3 vendor driven: LSI, Dell, HP. >> - It is being developed by you and Christoph, the people >>who decide what goes in or not. > > > No, it will go in because it's the only class actually available. > > I'd still love to see any code from you posted publically. I've been > forwarded in private some code you sent around to a few people at OLS, Thats good, I was hoping that you'd get it. > but you still can't be bothered to actually posting it publically. Not C'mon Christoph -- no one more than me wants to see SCSI Core improved. 5 years ago because of iSCSI, now because of SAS. It's not about "being bothered", it's just that it's not quite finished yet. > that even if my minimal code goes in now there's absolutely no reason > we can't replace it completely later on. See the evolution of the FC > transport class. Who makes all those decisions? More generally, why is SCSI Core not being managed by Documentation/ManagingStyle? Is it because there's so much vendor interest here? Luben - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
