On 11/14/2010 01:59 AM, Greg KH wrote: > In the end, I guess it really doesn't matter as this code isn't getting > merged so I shouldn't worry about it, right? > This is not nice and is uncharacteristic of you. This project, even though out-of-tree, is an old and mature project that has many users. These are all *Linux* users. The authors and community have come to us for help, and advice on making this code acceptable for mainline and hardening the code the way, only one project on the planet can do, the Linux community. I think it is our courtesy and obligation to the Linux users of this Project to comment where they are doing wrong and where they should do better. It is not of their choice to be out-of-tree. It is ours. The least we can do. Is give then some assistance if we can, and have 5 minutes of our time. All these issues we were discussing are interesting and are real Kernel problems. For instance the last comment you made was that for such a dynamic system and life time problems, and functionality. A better and expected solution might be the device tree and not sysfs. And for such big additions the sysfs maintainer must give his blessings. This is most valuable information regardless of if we accept their code or not at the end. (And we better explain ourselves well when we don't) > thanks, > > greg k-h Sincerely yours Boaz -- 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
