From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261314AbVBGURM (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Feb 2005 15:17:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261311AbVBGUQB (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Feb 2005 15:16:01 -0500 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:52403 "EHLO parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261283AbVBGUOC (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Feb 2005 15:14:02 -0500 Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 14:45:35 -0200 From: Marcelo Tosatti To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Jeff Garzik , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Martins Krikis , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] "iswraid" (ICHxR ataraid sub-driver) for 2.4.29 Message-ID: <20050207164535.GA5378@logos.cnet> References: <87651hdoiv.fsf@yahoo.com> <420582C6.7060407@pobox.com> <1107682076.22680.58.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <58cb370e050206044513eb7f89@mail.gmail.com> <42062BFE.7070907@pobox.com> <1107701373.22680.115.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1107701373.22680.115.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 03:49:33PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > I consider it not a new feature, but a missing feature, since otherwise > > user data cannot be accessed in the RAID setups. > > the same is true for all new hardware drivers and hardware support > patches. And for new DRM (since new X may need it) and new .. and > new ... where is the line? > > for me a deep maintenance mode is about keeping existing stuff working; > all new hw support and derivative hardware support (such as this) can be > pointed at the new stable series... which has been out for quite some > time now.. I personally dislike and discourage the addition of ANY new drivers to v2.4 at this point, and I sincerely appreciate every argument against iswraid, but I have no problems with it because it looks like a valid special case since it allows users to access their ICH5/6 RAID partitions, as Jeff mentions. Moreover the driver is going to die with v2.4 anyway, its not like any future compatibility problem is being introduced. So I understand the argument against having it in the tree: the elegant way of doing it is to use dmraid. But I dont buy it as an argument against merging it in a dying v2.4.x tree which purpose is to serve existing users. You are mistaken in arguing that "oh, since this driver can be merged, its likely that any v2.6 HW support/driver will be accepted in v2.4". So, its up to Jeff, and he seems to be OK with it.