From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751231AbVI2MrO (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:47:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751215AbVI2MrO (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:47:14 -0400 Received: from magic.adaptec.com ([216.52.22.17]:25827 "EHLO magic.adaptec.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751128AbVI2MrN (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:47:13 -0400 Message-ID: <433BE216.1090108@adaptec.com> Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:46:14 -0400 From: Luben Tuikov User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Moore, Eric Dean" CC: ltuikov@yahoo.com, Jeff Garzik , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , SCSI Mailing List Subject: Re: I request inclusion of SAS Transport Layer and AIC-94xx into the kernel References: <91888D455306F94EBD4D168954A9457C043889D9@nacos172.co.lsil.com> In-Reply-To: <91888D455306F94EBD4D168954A9457C043889D9@nacos172.co.lsil.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Sep 2005 12:46:22.0831 (UTC) FILETIME=[CBFBEFF0:01C5C4F3] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/28/05 18:17, Moore, Eric Dean wrote: > Can you stop this tirade, e.g. conspiracy theory, > in regards to LSI/MPT and the transport layer? What conspiracy theory? Oh you mean that one _technology_ is in the kernel and another distinct, radically _different_ is NOT? Oh you mean that conspiracy theory? > That is not the case. There will be other sas I don't see our driver in the kernel, do you? > solutions that implement discovery, and > sas/sata translation in firmware, higher level > event handling. Yes, and they would all be MPT-like technology. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is that you folks just sit and watch this, while you could explain to James et al, that indeed the technologies are different and there is no reason NOT to include one but leave the other out. >>See, I've mentioned many times that the two >>radically different technologies can coexist. >>But I've not heard any technical word >>from the other guys: you. > > I just don't have time to engage you. > I've got work to do, customer requests, issues, > etc. :-) That a nice way to get out of the situation. I was hoping you'd say something like, "Yeah, the technologies are different -- I don't see why one should be in and another not." Luben