[craigl@promise.com: Getting A Patch Into The Kernel] (fwd)

[craigl@promise.com: Getting A Patch Into The Kernel] (fwd)

[Andre Hedrick]

Mr. Craig Lyons,

I do not want or need your company's patches, period.
I will not take or accept or approve of any dirty code that allows the a
poorly written binary driver that can not control its ISR and it
interferes irresponsiblily with the native ATA driver.

These are the words from your dear "Linus Chen".

Oh answer your voice mail, I left you a message.

Regards,

Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development

----- Forwarded message from Craig Lyons <craigl@promise.com> -----

        X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
        Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
        Message-ID: <005101c0f38f$e2000960$bd01a8c0@promise.com>
        From: "Craig Lyons" <craigl@promise.com>
        Date:	Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:34:43 -0700
        To: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
        Subject: Getting A Patch Into The Kernel
        Importance: Normal

Hello,

My name is Craig Lyons and I am the marketing manager at Promise Technology.
We have a question and are hoping you can point us in the right direction.
In the 2.4 kernel there is support for some of our products (Ultra 66, Ultra
100, etc.). As you may or may not know, our Ultra family of controllers
(which are just standard IDE controllers and do not have RAID) use the same
ASIC on them as our FastTrak RAID controllers do. The 2.4 kernel will
recognize our Ultra family of controllers, but there is a problem in that a
FastTrak will not be recognized as a FastTrak, but as an Ultra.
Consequently, the array on the FastTrak is not recognized as an array, but
instead each disk is seen individually, and the users data cannot be
properly accessed. We have a patch that fixes this and are wondering if it
is possible to get this patch into the kernel, and if so, how this would be
done?

I apologize if this is the incorrect e-mail to be making this request to. If
this is not the correct address to be posting this message, any assistance
as to where it should be directed would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Craig


Craig Lyons
Marketing Manager
Promise Technology
1460 Koll Circle
San Jose, CA 95112
USA
Voice - 408-452-0948 ext. 241
Fax - 408-452-1534
craigl@promise.com
http:\\www.promise.com

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

Re: [craigl@promise.com: Getting A Patch Into The Kernel] (fwd)

[bert hubert]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 11:22:56PM -0700, Andre Hedrick wrote:

> I do not want or need your company's patches, period.

That's just not true and you know it. If the patches were to be written in
cooperation with you and of proper quality and license you would love them.

> I will not take or accept or approve of any dirty code that allows the a
> poorly written binary driver that can not control its ISR and it
> interferes irresponsiblily with the native ATA driver.

That's the real issue of course. Craig contacted you to find out what was
wrong and you should explain to him what the problems are, and how he could
solve them. Linus would accept patches written by Bill Gates if they were
licensed right and coded properly, so I don't see why Promise should be an
exception.

Never get angry at bad code. Only explain people why it's bad. At length if
needed.

Craig:

> instead each disk is seen individually, and the users data cannot be
> properly accessed. We have a patch that fixes this and are wondering if it
> is possible to get this patch into the kernel, and if so, how this would be
> done?

The procedure is to publish the patch publically and have people comment and
try it. They will often find that your code is not up to par or does things
in ways that do not please the kernel people. No evil is intended, it is
just that the kernel developers are a choosy bunch. But given the right
prodding they will tell you how you could change your code so that it is
acceptable. Alternatively, people here might see what needs to be done from
your patch, and do it themselves.

> I apologize if this is the incorrect e-mail to be making this request to. If
> this is not the correct address to be posting this message, any assistance
> as to where it should be directed would be greatly appreciated.

This was definitely the right email address :-) Mr Hedrick appears not to
like your work and as he is prone to do, he explained so graphically. This
happens. The main thing is to approach kernel coders from a technical
standpoint - they are not interested in commercial pressures or deadlines.
Get your technical people to talk to 'our' technical people and make sure
that they realise that it should be done 'our way' (as it is 'our code')
and things will go swimmingly.

> http:\\www.promise.com

Reversing those backslashes might aid your credibility here :-) If you ever
feel that you don't understand these strange linux people, please contact me
or some other people. It can be a weird country, especially coming from a
marketing devision. Thanks for trying!

But do understand that no amount of prodding, cajoling or legal pressure
will get any company anywhere. That's just not the way. As we say "It's the
code, stupid!". Good luck!

Regards,

bert hubert

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

-- 
http://www.PowerDNS.com      Versatile DNS Services  
Trilab                       The Technology People   
'SYN! .. SYN|ACK! .. ACK!' - the mating call of the internet

Re: [craigl@promise.com: Getting A Patch Into The Kernel] (fwd)

[Andre Hedrick]

No I would not take their code and apply it.
I might not even want to look at it.
All I want is the API rules to the signatures and we have them now.

We do not need their driver.

Next insults to linux in this form are unacceptable means of
communication.

*********
This support will also include a version of our FastCheck utility for
X-Windows. To start we will only support distribution versions of the
kernel. No test or beta kernels will be supported at this time. Promise
realizes that support could have come much sooner but as I started earlier
we are much more concerned with compatibility and quality rather than
rushing support to the market at the expense of the end user. Hopefully this
answers you immediate questions about our Linux support structure.
*********

Stating/Implying that Linux Maintainers do not care about "quality".

Oh it gets much worse, but I want to see if the sales for Promise have hit
hard enough to break their linux-unfriendly additude.  Mind you the came
begging for help because their sales are off, and I was willing to help on 
the terms of GPL/GNU and mine.  But GPL/GNU was to big to choke down.
When the sales hurt enough and they have not choice, I will reconsider.
Breathe, because you die before I change my position, if you are hold a
breath.

I do not trust Promise, and three years of their general arrogance is more
than enough.  Mind you that at one point I had two people in the San Jose
office that were friendly be they are now gone.  They got to close to
GPL/GNU and something happened.

Regards,

Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, bert hubert wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 11:22:56PM -0700, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> 
> > I do not want or need your company's patches, period.
> 
> That's just not true and you know it. If the patches were to be written in
> cooperation with you and of proper quality and license you would love them.
> 
> > I will not take or accept or approve of any dirty code that allows the a
> > poorly written binary driver that can not control its ISR and it
> > interferes irresponsiblily with the native ATA driver.
> 
> That's the real issue of course. Craig contacted you to find out what was
> wrong and you should explain to him what the problems are, and how he could
> solve them. Linus would accept patches written by Bill Gates if they were
> licensed right and coded properly, so I don't see why Promise should be an
> exception.
> 
> Never get angry at bad code. Only explain people why it's bad. At length if
> needed.
> 
> Craig:
> 
> > instead each disk is seen individually, and the users data cannot be
> > properly accessed. We have a patch that fixes this and are wondering if it
> > is possible to get this patch into the kernel, and if so, how this would be
> > done?
> 
> The procedure is to publish the patch publically and have people comment and
> try it. They will often find that your code is not up to par or does things
> in ways that do not please the kernel people. No evil is intended, it is
> just that the kernel developers are a choosy bunch. But given the right
> prodding they will tell you how you could change your code so that it is
> acceptable. Alternatively, people here might see what needs to be done from
> your patch, and do it themselves.
> 
> > I apologize if this is the incorrect e-mail to be making this request to. If
> > this is not the correct address to be posting this message, any assistance
> > as to where it should be directed would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> This was definitely the right email address :-) Mr Hedrick appears not to
> like your work and as he is prone to do, he explained so graphically. This
> happens. The main thing is to approach kernel coders from a technical
> standpoint - they are not interested in commercial pressures or deadlines.
> Get your technical people to talk to 'our' technical people and make sure
> that they realise that it should be done 'our way' (as it is 'our code')
> and things will go swimmingly.
> 
> > http:\\www.promise.com
> 
> Reversing those backslashes might aid your credibility here :-) If you ever
> feel that you don't understand these strange linux people, please contact me
> or some other people. It can be a weird country, especially coming from a
> marketing devision. Thanks for trying!
> 
> But do understand that no amount of prodding, cajoling or legal pressure
> will get any company anywhere. That's just not the way. As we say "It's the
> code, stupid!". Good luck!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> bert hubert
> 
> > 
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> > 
> > 
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> > 
> 
> -- 
> http://www.PowerDNS.com      Versatile DNS Services  
> Trilab                       The Technology People   
> 'SYN! .. SYN|ACK! .. ACK!' - the mating call of the internet

Re: [craigl@promise.com: Getting A Patch Into The Kernel] (fwd)

[Arjan van de Ven]

Dear Mr. Craig Lyons,

> Hello,
> 
> My name is Craig Lyons and I am the marketing manager at Promise Technology.
> We have a question and are hoping you can point us in the right direction.
> In the 2.4 kernel there is support for some of our products (Ultra 66, Ultra
> 100, etc.). As you may or may not know, our Ultra family of controllers
> (which are just standard IDE controllers and do not have RAID) use the same
> ASIC on them as our FastTrak RAID controllers do. The 2.4 kernel will
> recognize our Ultra family of controllers, but there is a problem in that a
> FastTrak will not be recognized as a FastTrak, but as an Ultra.
> Consequently, the array on the FastTrak is not recognized as an array, but
> instead each disk is seen individually, and the users data cannot be
> properly accessed. 


This is not correct. Kernel 2.4.5-ac13 and later have a driver to
support the Fasttrak 
raid system. I wish Promise was more helpful during the development of
this driver,
as it is currently developed fully independent and without any help /
support or even
acknowledgement of Promise. As a result, not yet all RAID modes and
configurations are
fully supported. 

Greetings,   
   Arjan van de Ven

Re: [craigl@promise.com: Getting A Patch Into The Kernel] (fwd)

[Rob Landley]

On Wednesday 13 June 2001 03:06, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> No I would not take their code and apply it.
> I might not even want to look at it.

Well, you're maintainer and I'm obviously not, but it's nice to hear you've 
kept an open mind on this issue. :)

> All I want is the API rules to the signatures and we have them now.
>
> We do not need their driver.

Reinventing the wheel can be fun.  Richard Stallman's been doing that for 
years since he refuses to take any patch where he can't physically track down 
the author and make them sign a piece of paper handing the copyright over to 
the Free Software Foundation.  (He's got a file cabinet full of them so he'll 
have unassailable standing in case he ever has to sue anybody to enforce the 
GPL on GNU code.)

Of course the unfortunate side effect of this is that the GNU project stalled 
in the late 1980's, and this whole "Linux" think forked off of it and took 
over instead, in large part because there was just too much friction getting 
patches through the maintainer bottleneck, while Linus would accept anything 
from anybody.  (Linus sucked all the developers away from comp.os.minix for 
the same reason.)  But oh well.

> Next insults to linux in this form are unacceptable means of
> communication.
>
... insult omitted
>
> Stating/Implying that Linux Maintainers do not care about "quality".

"Quality" is a loaded word in marketing circles, due to ISO nine zillion and 
the sickening-sigma stuff and all that.  I always think of it in terms of 
"the most prominent qualities of this product are that it smells bad and 
tends to explode without warning.  Now wrap that up in flowers and make it 
sound good."  And off the marketing droids go...

You are aware that you were speaking to a marketing person from Promise, 
correct?  (He admitted it and everything.  We didn't even have to use 
thumbscrews.  Kind of a waste to get them all out and oiled and everything in 
that case...)

> Oh it gets much worse, but I want to see if the sales for Promise have hit
> hard enough to break their linux-unfriendly additude.

The dude came hat in hand into the linux-kernel mailing list asking how he 
could play nice with us, (apparently honestly not knowing,) and you bit his 
head off.

I don't think sales have hit hard enough to overcome THAT just yet.  But I 
could be wrong...

> Mind you the came begging for help because their sales are off, and I was 
> willing to help on the terms of GPL/GNU and mine.  But GPL/GNU was to big 
> to choke down.

Okay, THERE is the problem.  Halfway through the message.  Why not start with 
that next time?

If the problem is that the code will not be made available under the GPL, 
then of course that IS an insurmountable problem for getting it included in 
the kernel.  But it's entirely possible that our marketing friend didn't know 
that.  It's entirely possible he doesn't know what the GPL -IS-.  (If you've 
been sharing a private conversation with him that hasn't been CC'd to the 
list, than obviously I could be wrong about this...)

> When the sales hurt enough and they have not choice, I will reconsider.

No, hopefully THEY will reconsider.  You couldn't get Linus to accept non-gpl 
code either.

> Breathe, because you die before I change my position, if you are hold a
> breath.
>
> I do not trust Promise, and three years of their general arrogance is more
> than enough.  

I honestly doubt that the suit who just wandered through has a clue what the 
GPL is.  He's not a lawyer, and he doesn't write free software.  If he really 
was trying to help, and he was new to this, woudn't it be a nice first 
impression to clearly say "this licensing issue is blocking the inclusion of 
your code" so he knows what the problem is rather than "we're biased against 
promise, so we're going to pick on you and call you names?"

> Mind you that at one point I had two people in the San Jose
> office that were friendly be they are now gone.

If you've approached every new person from promise this way ever since, I'm 
not exactly suprised you haven't met more like them.  (I honestly hope that 
the previous sentence was a harsh and unfair assessment, and that you haven't 
been doing that.)

No corporation is truly a monolithic entity.  It's just a bunch of disjointed 
individuals who spend a lot of time in meetings filling out forms.  You can 
deal with them as a faceless professional with a known set of duties, or you 
can try to deal with them as a human being.

(Either way has been known to work, a bit like having two interfaces for the 
same object in Java.  I learned that working at IBM.  Plus the concepts of 
plausible deniability, least expected effort, a sort of judo approach to 
political infighting, that forgiveness is an order of magnitude easier to get 
than permission because punishing you takes effort, turning uncertainty to 
your advantage through the power of procrastination, and that everything I've 
seen so far in dilbert is less than 5% off from reality in the Fortune 500.  
Then I got the heck out of there and joined a six person start-up.)

> Regards,
>
> Andre Hedrick
> Linux ATA Development

Rob
Random geek without standing in this issue, who readily admits it but 
comments anyway.

Re: [craigl@promise.com: Getting A Patch Into The Kernel] (fwd)

[Andre Hedrick]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Rob Landley wrote:

> Well, you're maintainer and I'm obviously not, but it's nice to hear you've 
> kept an open mind on this issue. :)

I have seen one version and I got physically sick.

> > All I want is the API rules to the signatures and we have them now.
> >
> > We do not need their driver.
> 
> Reinventing the wheel can be fun.  Richard Stallman's been doing that for

Assuming that the first thing presented was a round one and not the 
flat-sided square that is being misrepresented.
 
> > Stating/Implying that Linux Maintainers do not care about "quality".
> 
> "Quality" is a loaded word in marketing circles, due to ISO nine zillion and

We all know this, and it was their intent to slap around the idea that we
lack quality.

> You are aware that you were speaking to a marketing person from Promise, 
> correct?  (He admitted it and everything.  We didn't even have to use 
> thumbscrews.  Kind of a waste to get them all out and oiled and everything in 
> that case...)

No, because marketing people have at least three faces.

> > Oh it gets much worse, but I want to see if the sales for Promise have hit
> > hard enough to break their linux-unfriendly additude.
> 
> The dude came hat in hand into the linux-kernel mailing list asking how he 
> could play nice with us, (apparently honestly not knowing,) and you bit his 
> head off.

Like I said, he is a lamb in a slaughter house that Promise created.
It was just this year (late-April) that Promise came "HAT and Hand" and
"Knife in the Other" and I got suckered again.

> I don't think sales have hit hard enough to overcome THAT just yet.  But I 
> could be wrong...

 36 Apr 10 James Baker - PTE   (9,744) RE: lack of Linux support hurt sales
 37 Apr 11 support@promise.co  (1,243) Re: RE: lack of Linux support hurt sales
 38 Apr 11 Daron Keith        (10,549) RE: lack of Linux support hurt sales
 39 Apr 11 support@promise.co  (1,243) Re: RE: lack of Linux support hurt sales
 40 Apr 11 James Baker - PTE  (11,069) RE: lack of Linux support hurt sales
 41 Apr 11 Daron Keith        (33,973) RE: lack of Linux support hurt sales

#41 was a VIRUS sent to me to Damage and or Destroy my work.

 42 Apr 11 James Baker - PTE   (2,944) RE: lack of Linux support hurt sales
 43 Apr 11 support@promise.co  (1,243) Re: RE: lack of Linux support hurt sales
 44 Apr 11 support@promise.co  (1,249) Re: RE: lack of Linux support hurt sales
 45 Apr 11 Billy Harrison      (4,691) RE: lack of Linux support hurt sales
 46 Apr 11 support@promise.co  (1,249) Re: RE: lack of Linux support hurt sales
 47 Apr 11 Daron Keith         (6,967) RE: lack of Linux support hurt sales
 48 Apr 11 Billy Harrison      (7,323) RE: lack of Linux support hurt sales
 49 Apr 11 support@promise.co  (1,249) Re: RE: lack of Linux support hurt sales
 50 Apr 11 Billy Harrison     (10,213) RE: lack of Linux support hurt sales
 51 Apr 12 James Baker - PTE   (2,339) RE: lack of Linux support hurt sales
 52 Apr 12 James Baker - PTE   (1,524) Update <subject change>

> > Mind you the came begging for help because their sales are off, and I was 
> > willing to help on the terms of GPL/GNU and mine.  But GPL/GNU was to big 
> > to choke down.
> 
> Okay, THERE is the problem.  Halfway through the message.  Why not start with 
> that next time?

Because I am a lamer in email and prefere face to face.

> If the problem is that the code will not be made available under the GPL, 
> then of course that IS an insurmountable problem for getting it included in 
> the kernel.  But it's entirely possible that our marketing friend didn't know 
> that.  It's entirely possible he doesn't know what the GPL -IS-.  (If you've 
> been sharing a private conversation with him that hasn't been CC'd to the 
> list, than obviously I could be wrong about this...)

I am sorry to chuckle but people have lost their jobs at Promise over
working with me to bring that company closer to GPL.  The guys that this
has happened to I offered to help them out but they managed on their own.

> > When the sales hurt enough and they have not choice, I will reconsider.
> 
> No, hopefully THEY will reconsider.  You couldn't get Linus to accept non-gpl 
> code either.

No, I will reconsider, since we are assuming that they are coming back
with two hats, one in each hand.  This one hat one hand thing hurts.

> > Breathe, because you die before I change my position, if you are hold a
> > breath.
> >
> > I do not trust Promise, and three years of their general arrogance is more
> > than enough.  
> 
> I honestly doubt that the suit who just wandered through has a clue what the

They do not wear "suits", thanks for the laugh!
 
> GPL is.  He's not a lawyer, and he doesn't write free software.  If he really 
> was trying to help, and he was new to this, woudn't it be a nice first 
> impression to clearly say "this licensing issue is blocking the inclusion of 
> your code" so he knows what the problem is rather than "we're biased against 
> promise, so we're going to pick on you and call you names?"
> 
> > Mind you that at one point I had two people in the San Jose
> > office that were friendly be they are now gone.
> 
> If you've approached every new person from promise this way ever since, I'm 
> not exactly suprised you haven't met more like them.  (I honestly hope that 
> the previous sentence was a harsh and unfair assessment, and that you haven't 
> been doing that.)

It is unfair, because I got screwed by Promise just this past April.
It was the last time and I told them that fact.

> No corporation is truly a monolithic entity.  It's just a bunch of disjointed 
> individuals who spend a lot of time in meetings filling out forms.  You can 
> deal with them as a faceless professional with a known set of duties, or you 
> can try to deal with them as a human being.

In this case you are wrong and I wish you were not.

Lastly, I gave this fellow my mobile cell-number and told him that I do
not want his driver, I want honesty and that I am mad and tired of the
story-line and "Broken Promise's" that they send and sell.

So Craig, my phone has not rung or your story has not changed.

Regards,

Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development