>On Sat, 2005-10-29 at 14:24 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote: >> Here's a rediff of a patch I sent at the end of August. >> >> Rename megaraid to megaraid_legacy, changing sysfs name, module >> name, and the messages printed out via printk. I have left >the procfs name as >> "megaraid" as presumably userspace tools rely on this. >> >> Remove hardware ID's from megaraid_legacy which overlap with >the newgen >> megaraid drivers. >> >> Allow megaraid_legacy to be built alongside the newgen driver. >> >> Instead of renaming the file locally and sending a huge >unreviewable diff, >> I've left the original filenames (megaraid.c and megaraid.h) >in place. Please >> use git-mv to rename these to megaraid_legacy.[ch] once you >have applied this. > >This looks fine to me. I would, however, like input from the megaraid >maintainers, since it actually involves a name change. However, if >there are no comments before we got -rc, I'll queue it for after 2.6.15 > >James James, the people responsible for megaraid/megaraid_mbox are collecting information from our key customers about the impact of moving overlapping ids. The concern, I believe, is that some customers who were exclusively using megaraid will be forced to use megaraid_mbox. I also see that both drivers register_chrdev() with "megadev" string. There is going to be some impact on a stack of applications. I am not sure how Daniel's patch solved this. I sincerely thank Daniel Drake for kicking this issue into high gear. Please know that this issue got the attention it needs. Getting customer feedback wasn't very fast. How long are you willing to hold this patch? Sreenivas - : 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
