please revert [PATCH] s390: zfcp act enhancements
That cset is adding tons of not used intree exports to the zfcp driver, for an IBM module for an API (SNIA HBA API) that we as we as the scsi team have rejected.
If IBM wants to support a managment API for their FC adapter they should participate in the FC transport class development.
I also want to protest that IBM sends scsi LLDD updates not via linux-scsi *AGAIN*.
Quoted 10 lines · Christoph Hellwig
That cset is adding tons of not used intree exports to the zfcp driver, for an IBM module for an API (SNIA HBA API) that we as we as the scsi team have rejected.
If IBM wants to support a managment API for their FC adapter they should participate in the FC transport class development.
I also want to protest that IBM sends scsi LLDD updates not via linux-scsi *AGAIN*.
Seconded, frankly.
Looking at the changelog:
zfcp host adapter changes:
- Add access control enhancements.
- Add event callbacks.
if it had also had
- Add zillions of symbol exports
then people might have taken a closer look, no?
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): OFE1CCC05C.0690AC49-ON42256F4E.0032BD42-42256F4E.00354C44@uk.ibm.com
Quoted 4 lines
I talked with the scsi people about the exports. And yes, the intent for adding these exports has been to allow the hba abi in its current form to work with a single add-on module. We know that this is a dead-end path but they (our scsi folks) want to have a working solution now.
That's not how Linux works. LLDDs are not supposed to add APIs, especially not that bad ones.
Quoted 7 lines
The standard
answer to that usually is that the real solution takes as long as it takes. We find ourselves in between these two positions. Not a good place to be.Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
If IBM wants to support a managment API for their FC adapter they should participate in the FC transport class development.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I also want to protest that IBM sends scsi LLDD updates not via linux-scsi *AGAIN*.
Mea culpa, this has been my fault. This addresses a question that bothers me for some time: should zfcp updates go over the arch line to -bk or would it be better to push ALL zfcp updates via linux-scsi and the scsi maintainers. I don't really understand in detail what the heck the scsi code is doing.
changes to scsi LLDDs should always go via linux-scsi.
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): OF612A97F2.2AB23760-ON42256F4F.00531770-42256F4F.0053544D@de.ibm.com
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
changes to scsi LLDDs should always go via linux-scsi.
Fine, that answers half of the question. The other half of the question is about the sign-off chain. So far I've been sending the zfcp updates directly to Andrew for integration. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a scsi guy in the loop before the patch reaches Andrew?
You shouldn't send them to Andrew at all. Send them to James, and he'll put it into the scsi tree which is picked up in -mm.