Re: [PATCH] scsi: target/sbp: remove firewire SBP target driver
From: Finn Thain <hidden>
Date: 2020-06-16 09:42:29
Also in:
linux-scsi, lkml, target-devel
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020, Chris Boot wrote:
On 15/06/2020 00:28, Finn Thain wrote:quoted
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020, Chris Boot wrote:quoted
I expect that if someone finds this useful it can stick around (but that's not my call).Who's call is that? If the patch had said "From: Martin K. Petersen" and "This driver is being removed because it has the following defects..." that would be some indication of a good-faith willingness to accept users as developers in the spirit of the GPL, which is what you seem to be alluding to (?).If you're asking me, I'd say it was martin's call:quoted
SCSI TARGET SUBSYSTEM M: "Martin K. Petersen" [off-list ref][...]quoted
F: drivers/target/ F: include/target/
The question I asked you was intended to make you think. I wasn't asking you to search MAINTAINERS for "drivers/target" (I had already done so). Chris, you can find my name in that file too. That's because I see my role as custodian of that particular code. That code lives in the kernel.org tree because others put it there and because users find it useful -- not merely because it happens to please the official glorious MAINTAINER of said code. If you would ask, "who's call is it to delete drivers/nubus? or drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c?" my answer is, I have no idea.
quoted
quoted
I just don't have the time or inclination or hardware to be able to maintain it anymore, so someone else would have to pick it up.Which is why most drivers get orphaned, right?Sure, but that's not what Martin asked me to do, hence this patch.
Martin said, "I'd appreciate a patch to remove it" And Bart said, "do you want to keep this driver in the kernel tree?" AFAICT both comments are quite ambiguous. I don't see an actionable request, just an expression of interest from people doing their jobs. Note well: there is no pay check associated with having a MAINTAINERS file entry.