On Thu, Jul 20 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: > >If I thought that it would ever be updated to use block tagging, I would > >not care at all. The motivation to add it from the Promise end would be > >zero, as it doesn't really bring any immediate improvements for them. So > >it would have to be done by someone else, which means me or you. I don't > >have the hardware to actually test it, so unless you do and would want > >to do it, chances are looking slim :-) > > > >It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem, unfortunately. The block layer > >tagging _should_ be _the_ way to do it, and as such could be labelled a > >requirement. I know that's a bit harsh for the Promise folks, but > >unfortunately someone has to pay the price... > > I think it's highly rude to presume that someone who has so-far been > responsive, and responsible, will suddenly not be so. That is not the > way to encourage vendors to join the Linux process. > > They set up an alias for Linux maintainer stuff and have been acting > like a maintainer that will stick around. Why punish them for good > behavior? > I'm not trying to be rude to annyone, sorry if that is the impression you got. I'm just looking at things realistically - the fact is that moving to block layer tagging is not something that will benefit Promise, so it'd be fairly low on their agenda of things to do. I don't mean that in any rude sense, I can completely understand that position. Why would you want to change something that works? Hence it's reasonable to assume that eg you or I would eventually have to convert it. No punishment intended. -- Jens Axboe - : 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
