Adding SParMaintainer@unisys.com.

-Sameer Wadgaonkar

-----Original Message-----
From: greg@kroah.com [mailto:greg@kroah.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 12:44 PM
To: Bart Van Assche <redacted>
Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com; hare@suse.de; linux-next@vger.kernel.org;
martin.petersen@oracle.com; Wadgaonkar, Sameer Laxmikant
[off-list ref]
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi tree with the staging tree

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 04:36:06PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:

On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 18:05 +0200, greg@kroah.com wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:41:28PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:

quoted

* Most SCSI drivers exist under drivers/scsi, including the

virtio-scsi and

quoted

quoted

  xen-scsifront drivers. So why has the visorhba driver been added

under

quoted

quoted

  unisys/visorhba?

That's because right now it's still a staging driver.  Also, there are
other scsi drivers in other portions of the kernel tree (like the USB
driver), so there's no hard rule that all scsi drivers have to be under
drivers/scsi/

<snip>

Please provide this review to them, on the properly mailing list, I'm
sure they would be glad to get it.

OK, I will do that. BTW, is there a written down version of the rules for
adding a driver under drivers/staging available somewhere? 

The only 2 rules for adding a new drivers/staging driver is:
	- has to compile
	- correct license
and sometimes we let code in if the first one isn't true :)

As far as I can
see the visorhba driver went in without the linux-scsi mailing list having
been CC-ed. See also Benjamin Romer, [PATCH] staging: unisys: Add s-Par
visorhba, linux-driver-devel mailing list, July 2015
(https://marc.info/?l=linux-driver-devel&m=143681271902628).

That's totally normal, why would the scsi developers care about a
staging driver in such a rough state.  Only when it looks "good enough"
would we ask for a scsi developer review to move it out of staging.

hope this helps,

greg k-h