Greg KH, on 11/15/2010 07:16 PM wrote: > Why, I'm not allowed to get frustrated at repeated attempts to get the > original poster to change their code to something that is acceptable and > just give up and walk away? > > Why not? Hmm, frankly, I decided that you agreed with my arguments.. As I wrote, I'm willing to make any changes you requests. I only asked why this should be done. I really don't understand why we and other similar in-kernel developers should treat kobjects in the different way than any other subobjects of our outer objects and make for them _additional code_ to specially treat them as life-time center (http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/11/10/421)? You have not explained it anywhere in any doc I can find. This is just small "why" question. Greg, don't we have a right to ask this before go on? >> 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 also the job of the kernel community to say "No, what you are > doing is wrong, please don't do that." > > And that's what I'm doing here. > >> 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. > > I have given _way_ more than 5 minutes of my time already. We appreciated it very much. >> 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. > > Yes, that is what I have been saying for a while now. > > Again: > This code is using kobjects incorrectly. > This code should not be using kobjects. > > this is my last response to this thread now, and I'm sure you can > understand why. It is REALLY frustrating you are refusing to explain why. I guess, I'm too stupid to figure out that alone. Don't you want we rise as highly skilled kernel developers? I believe, not only SCST developers are very interested to know background behind particular moves in the kernel. Thanks, Vlad -- 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
