On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 17:22 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The SCSI_SEAGATE driver has:
> - already been marked as BROKEN in 2.6.0 three years ago and
> - is still marked as BROKEN.
>
> Drivers that had been marked as BROKEN for such a long time seem to be
> unlikely to be revived in the forseeable future.
>
> But if anyone wants to ever revive this driver, the code is still
> present in the older kernel releases.
Would you care to explain the rationale for this, please. If the driver
had been riddled with errors and compilation problems, I might have
acquiesced, but now I come to look it over, it seems structurally
reasonably OK (we certainly have non-BROKEN worse ones) plus it compiles
fine. So I'm wondering why it's marked broken in the first place.
Since it was your original patch:
Author: Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon Sep 1 19:22:52 2003 -0700
[PATCH] Mark more drivers BROKEN{,ON_SMP}
- let more drivers that don't compile depend on BROKEN
- MTD_BLKMTD is fixed, remove the dependency on BROKEN
- let all drivers that don't compile on SMP (due to cli/sti usage)
depend on a BROKEN_ON_SMP that is only defined if !SMP || BROKEN
- #include interrupt.h for dummy cli/sti/... in two files to fix the
UP compilation of these files
I marked only drivers that are broken for a long time and where I don't
know about existing fixes with BROKEN or BROKEN_ON_SMP.
I'd like to know why it was marked BROKEN in the first place.
Thanks,
James
-
To unsubscribe from this list: 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
