[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1503938165.2841.30.camel@wdc.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:36:06 +0000
From: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
To: "greg@...ah.com" <greg@...ah.com>
CC: "sfr@...b.auug.org.au" <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"hare@...e.de" <hare@...e.de>,
"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
"martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"sameer.wadgaonkar@...sys.com" <sameer.wadgaonkar@...sys.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi tree with the staging tree
On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 18:05 +0200, greg@...ah.com wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:41:28PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > * Most SCSI drivers exist under drivers/scsi, including the virtio-scsi and
> > xen-scsifront drivers. So why has the visorhba driver been added under
> > unisys/visorhba?
>
> That's because right now it's still a staging driver. Also, there are
> other scsi drivers in other portions of the kernel tree (like the USB
> driver), so there's no hard rule that all scsi drivers have to be under
> drivers/scsi/
>
> <snip>
>
> Please provide this review to them, on the properly mailing list, I'm
> sure they would be glad to get it.
OK, I will do that. BTW, is there a written down version of the rules for
adding a driver under drivers/staging available somewhere? As far as I can
see the visorhba driver went in without the linux-scsi mailing list having
been CC-ed. See also Benjamin Romer, [PATCH] staging: unisys: Add s-Par
visorhba, linux-driver-devel mailing list, July 2015
(https://marc.info/?l=linux-driver-devel&m=143681271902628).
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists