From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261171AbVFNKST (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jun 2005 06:18:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261174AbVFNKST (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jun 2005 06:18:19 -0400 Received: from natsmtp00.rzone.de ([81.169.145.165]:7379 "EHLO natsmtp00.rzone.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261171AbVFNKSM (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jun 2005 06:18:12 -0400 From: Wolfgang Draxinger Organization: DARKSTARgames To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?J=F6rg_Schilling_again=2E=2E=2E_=5BPlease_reply_CC=3A?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_wdraxinger?=@darkstargames.de] Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:18:21 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1400920.I7kWEcCbKh"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200506141218.29200.wdraxinger@darkstargames.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --nextPart1400920.I7kWEcCbKh Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline A few weeks ago I was updating cdrecord, and as ever when doing=20 updates I'm RTFM (as any user should). Now while doing so I ran about=20 a few lines, complainung about the Linux developers attitude to some=20 patched, and so on, well, the address developers surely know what I=20 mean. However I was disturbed by the fact, that despite a lot of=20 flaming there only few code examples. Admittingly: Not getting back=20 the SCSI error codes is a problem (it somehow reminds me on the GPL=20 vs. BSD joke, where GPL people try to fetch any sort of error while=20 BSD people just don't let errors happen), but communicating with HW=20 it's surely a good idea to do as much error checking possible, as=20 long it's for a sane reason and not just for the heck of it. So there was this patch by J=F6rg Schilling, which IMHO inroduced a nice=20 solution to the problem, yet keeping compatibility. The awnser by=20 Douglas Gilbert seemed not so elegant to me. However I also know that=20 you don't reject a patch without reason. And this is what I wasn't=20 able to find on the archives. Lately I had a few emails with J=F6rg and despite his contra Linux=20 attitude (Ok, he likes OpenSolaris more than Linux, so let him do so;=20 but instead of OpenSolaris, which tries to follow a pure academic=20 style, Linux _just works_) I got no information of any real technical=20 value. Well I didn't cared about the so called issues, as I never had=20 problems with cdrecord - ok the SUID bug required me to workaround,=20 but nothing that a 5 line sh script and a "%cdrw ALL=3D(ALL)=20 NOPASSWD: /usr/bin/cdrecord.real" rule for sudo can't solve. But a today's post on heise.de user forums really made me wonder,=20 what's the problem of the guy is - on a pure technically base. So what's the Linux Kernel developers' opinion on the lack of SCSI=20 error code return, technically? Happy coding =2D-=20 Wolfgang Draxinger lead programmer - DARKSTARgames --nextPart1400920.I7kWEcCbKh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCrq71BfWmRR/TvT4RAmIFAJ98zb3aPmCL8LCy6LtG5ey1nIoV6QCg6ulr QmwxXH+stPg1DMrhHo3bg4I= =tI18 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1400920.I7kWEcCbKh--