* James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 11:15 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Theodore Tso wrote: > > > > > > > > So would it be acceptable to merge the 50 kloc of crap _during_ the > > > > merge window? > > > > > > Yes. I actually looked at the driver (since I had pulled it - I've > > > unpulled it but am still mulling it over), and while I think it looked > > > huge and overly complex, it by no means gave me the kinds of vibes I > > > get from some "obviously-ported-from-windows-with-no-clue" drivers. > > > > > > So at least from my quick look I didn't get the feeling that the > > > driver was "evil". For me, it's a timing issue. I hate getting big > > > pull requests after -rc1 is out, and I really don't like the feeling > > > that people are just ignoring the merge window. > > > > > > That said, if somebody wants to look more closely at the driver, and > > > then wants to convince people that it should have gone through > > > "staging", feel free. But that's not what I've personally been arguing > > > about. > > > > Greg, what's your take on the quality of this new driver? Do you have > > some time to do a review of this with drivers/staging/ versus drivers/ > > glasses on? The Git URI is at: > > To me, the matter of staging versus actual tree isn't a quality issue > (otherwise we'd be shifting ~75% of SCSI drivers to staging, depending > on whose view of "quality" was being used). [...] I think you need to update your notion of what goes into drivers/staging/ - these days it's primarily about code/implementation quality (Greg please correct me if i'm wrong about that). Driver ABIs are distinctly down the priority list. > [...] It's an ABI issue. If we would have to change the user visible > ABI while the driver was being cleaned up, I'd want it in staging to > warn users to expect these problems. Although we couldn't clean up > everything, I did make sure this driver plugs correctly into the > standard linux FC ABI before putting it in the SCSI tree, so there are > no ABI changes anticipated even though there will likely be a lot of > code changes. Therefore, the correct clean up path for this one is > through the SCSI tree. What kind of significant ABI does this driver expose? If this question even comes up then it's using the wrong kind of ABI i think. Drivers should almost never expose significant new ABIs. If it's a storage management ABI then that should have been done at a higher level - possibly as a system call, but at minimum as a general facility. (Anyway ... this cannot be argued without knowing what specific ABI you mean here.) Ingo -- 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
