linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Promise 'stex' driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20060721121306.GA25045@suse.de>
Date:	Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:13:06 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...e.de>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com>,
	Ed Lin <ed.lin@...mise.com>,
	"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	hch <hch@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	akpm <akpm@...l.org>, promise_linux <promise_linux@...mise.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Promise 'stex' driver

On Thu, Jul 20 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> >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.
> 
> Did you read the patch that started this thread?  Promise has already 
> demonstrated they are willing to add changes requested by the community, 
> on top of an already-working driver.

Alright, then lets just get it merged and hope it works out.

-- 
Jens Axboe

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/