Re: [PATCH] aic79xx should be able to ignore HostRAID enabled adapters

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>]

Salyzyn, Mark wrote:
> Jeff Garzik [mailto:jgarzik@pobox.com] sez:
>
> > All throughout development, before Justin had written a 
> > single line of code, he was told to do things via Device Mapper.
>
>
> He did not strictly write the emd code, it was written years earlier by
> a team. It's release was the result of it being placed on his lap
> submit.

Ah, I stand corrected.

I just recall being on concalls months prior to public EMD release, 
urging the use of Device Mapper, and telling Adaptec and other involved 
companies that the submission would be rejected if the current course 
was continued.

No doubt it was very frustrating for the engineers doing the work to 
have their months of effort rejected, but it was also frustrating for 
me, since I was trying make all parties aware of the impending rejection 
well in advance.


> As I said, it all ended up being an unfortunate timing of events with
> unexpected side effects. At each instant of time it has always been
> clear what to do ...
>
> 2005? We tried to set up a case for ROI for the support of a dmraid
> plugin. I am merely a JAFO to that process trying to push it along.

Well, all your efforts are appreciated :)

Adaptec has an unfortunate history of simply not communicating well with 
the Linux community -- and I note that's a two-way street.  I've even 
heard it whispered that Linux people "hate Adaptec", that we take some 
sort of pleasure out of putting the screws to Adaptec.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Exclusing you, Mark, who seems to understand this stuff, Adaptec just 
seems to have a tough time understanding the rationale and goals behind 
the feedback from SCSI and Linux maintainers.

Adaptec -- excluding aacraid -- continues to have a history of (a) being 
grossly dissatisfied with the current SCSI code, and (b) concluding that 
a proper solution simply works around all the problems.  That's a fair 
perspective, but Linux prefers the more cross-vendor approach of 
modifying the base Linux code.

Greater than Linux itself, the GPL and open source create a commodity 
effect:  competitors work on the same piece of software, rather than 
producing competing versions of software.  Out of this principle falls 
the "update SCSI core, don't workaround in your driver" approach.  Ditto 
for use of Device Mapper, rather than doing RAID in the driver itself, 
or duplicating effort with EMD.  With open source, code duplication just 
increases effort, decreases test coverage, and increases the likelihood 
of bugs.

The downside (from a vendor perspective) is that vendor engineers are 
drafted into updating the Linux core, when a new spiffy hardware feature 
needs to be supported.  This is actually not a downside, but a benefit. 
   In the long run, common code is highly reus{able,ed}, leading to 
rapid development, vastly increased test coverage, and maintainable even 
if the original hardware vendor goes out of business, or EOLs the hardware.

I wish I could rewind the clock, and demonstrate to Justin, Scott, Luben 
and other Adaptec engineers that there are solid reasons behind each of 
these decisions, and its not "politics" or "NIH" or "we hate you" or "we 
are the anointed ones, bow to us."

Linux doesn't have a roadmap, rather it has certain code patterns that 
experience has taught us are sustainable, portable, and performant in 
the long term.  As long as new source code fits these code patterns, we 
welcome the addition with open arms.  From any company.

	Jeff


-
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/