From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265894AbTL3W1I (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:27:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265891AbTL3WY2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:24:28 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]:30932 "EHLO rwcrmhc12.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265869AbTL3WSX (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:18:23 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:18:20 -0500 From: Willem Riede To: James Bottomley Cc: Linux Kernel Subject: Re: The survival of ide-scsi in 2.6.x Message-ID: <20031230221820.GQ1277@linnie.riede.org> Reply-To: wrlk@riede.org References: <1072809890.2839.24.camel@mulgrave> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT In-Reply-To: <1072809890.2839.24.camel@mulgrave> (from James.Bottomley@steeleye.com on Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 13:44:49 -0500) X-Mailer: Balsa 2.0.15 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2003.12.30 13:44, James Bottomley wrote: > If people will have me, I am prepared to take on that responsibility. > I am just concerned that I may not have enough of a variety of devices > to be able to thoroughly test it (unless the DI-30 is the only one :-)). > What do people see as the requirements to be able to maintain ide-scsi? > > Well...there's currently not a long line of people wanting to do this, > so feel free to send in patches (at least cc'd to linux-scsi so I can > pick them up easily), and we'll see how it goes. OK. You did see the patch that came with the original, right? I just sent it to linux-kernel because the audience there is broader. Linus wants Jens to look at it, so I'm waiting for his response. > In the long term, I think libata will end up assuming much of the role > that ide-scsi does now, but since it doesn't interface to a lot of > existing motherboard chipsets, we're going to need ide-scsi around for a > while at least. Exactly. Thanks, Willem Riede.