> No self respecting SAS chip would not do 64 bit DMA, or have an sg tablesize > or any other limitation. yet... there will be :) > > Naturally, aic94xx has _no limitations_. :-) But hey, our hardware just > kicks a*s! if it has no such limits then it indeed does! > (Oh, I know, the solution you're paid to push into the kernel > doesn't need those since it does all SAS in the firmware.) I think you are way out of line here. James is very prudent in separating his job at SteelEye and his maintainership. > Hmm, lets see: > I posted today, a _complete_ solution, 1000 years ahead of this > "embryonic SAS class" you speak of. yet you post this without having had ANY discussion or earlier reviews in the recent months. IN fact to the outside world it looks like you sat on this code for a long time for competative reasons and just posted it now that Christoph is getting his layer finished. > Furthermore, why do you want to use a downgrade solution? > > The answer is simple: > After "emd", Dell (Hi Matt!) learned quickly that if they want something > in SCSI Core, they have to hire the people who _make_the_decisions_ what > goes in and stays out of SCSI Core, to write that something, irrespectively well EMD's failure was 100% Adaptecs fault. Adaptec was warned EARLY ON that a dmraid like solution was going to be needed. It was just that Adaptec decided to ignore this advice (and focus only on 2.4 and ignore 2.6 entirely) that caused Adaptec to waste all the time and money on it. > So as long as *you are on their payroll*, what are you discussing here James is paid by SteelEye. Not by Dell or LSI. > with me? *You have an agenda*! so do you. > I long for the days of the previous maintainer. What previous maintainer? - : 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
