From sacadmin Mon Jun 28 20:30:15 2010 Received: from grimmy.eng.sun.com (grimmy.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.108.114]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5T3UFkR002049 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:30:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grimmy.eng.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grimmy.eng.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5T3Rlxx022113; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:27:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (randyf@localhost) by grimmy.eng.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/Submit) with ESMTP id o5T3RlTG022110; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:27:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: grimmy.eng.sun.com: randyf owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:27:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Randy Fishel X-X-Sender: randyf@grimmy To: PSARC@sac.sfbay.sun.com cc: david.lobdell@oracle.com, vicki.abe@oracle.com, Michelle.Lei@sun.com, fred.herard@oracle.com, Jie.Cao@sun.com, Xun.Ni@sun.com, david.re@oracle.com, connie.vazquezimler@oracle.com Subject: Re: EOF amr [PSARC/2010/245 Self Review] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (GSO 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO Content-Length: 5758 I am sponsoring this case on behalf of James McPherson for the total removal of the amr driver. The hardware has been unavailable for a number of years, and the ability to test this platform has become extremely challenging due to platform support. We believe this qualifies as a self-review, but will change it if requested. The release binding is patch. Template Version: @(#)onepager.txt 1.36 10/02/16 SMI Copyright 2007 Sun Microsystems 1. Introduction 1.1. Project/Component Working Name: EOF amr(7d) 1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier: James.McPherson@oracle.com 1.3. Date of This Document: 2010-June-29 1.3.1. Date this project was conceived: 2010-June-28 1.4. Name of Major Document Customer(s)/Consumer(s): 1.4.1. The PAC or CPT you expect to review your project: Solaris PAC 1.4.2. The ARC(s) you expect to review your project: PSARC 1.4.3. The Director/VP who is "Sponsoring" this project: Andy Roach Chris Armes 1.4.4. The name of your business unit: Solaris 1.5. Email Aliases: 1.5.1. Responsible Manager: David.Re@oracle.com 1.5.2. Responsible Engineer: James.McPherson@oracle.com 1.5.3. Marketing Manager: Chris.Z.Baker@oracle.com 1.5.4. Interest List: Connie.Vazquezimler@oracle.com 2. Project Summary 2.1. Project Description: We wish to entirely remove amr(7d) from Solaris Next and Solaris 10 Update 10. A patch binding is requested. 2.2. Risks and Assumptions: The amr(7d) driver supports the MegaRAID cards which were commonly sold as Dell 3DC/4SC/4DC/4Di series hbas. These cards have not been available for purchase since approximately mid-2004. Based on enquiries within the OpenSolaris community, and a review of hardware supported by amr(7d), we find that it has not been possible for customers to acquire this hardware as new from the vendor since before the start of OpenSolaris. Those who are still running such hardware are considered unlikely to be running OpenSolaris or any Solaris 10 update. 3. Business Summary 3.1. Problem Area: It is no longer possible to acquire the hardware which is supported by amr(7d). Testing this code is problematic due to lack of hardware - so its existence is an extra burden for ON-PIT. Having unmaintained and untestable code closely associated with onnv and on10-{feature-}patch is dangerous, since the code rots without regular care and feeding. This decreases the quality of our deliveries. 3.2. Market/Requester: Solaris RPE Solaris x64 Platform Software Engineering 3.3. Business Justification: We can increase the quality of our deliveries (OS/Net) by removing this code. We can decrease the burden for ON-PIT by removing this code. Keeping this code alive takes cycles away from supporting hardware that hasn't passed its EOSL date. 3.4. Competitive Analysis: The hardware for the amr(7d) has been EOSLd by the manufacturers. Customers who really wish to use this family of parallel SCSI hba should use the glm(7d) driver instead. 3.5. Opportunity Window/Exposure: Now. We need to have these gates removed before Beta-1 of Solaris Next in order to make sure that we comply with the existing EOF policies. 3.6. How will you know when you are done?: We will be complete when the driver is removed from ON's source tree. 4. Technical Description: 4.1. Details: The current onnv-gate gatekeeper (James.McPherson@oracle.com) will handle the removal, and will use the CR in 4.2 to track the onnv-gate changes required. 4.2. Bug/RFE Number(s): 6964870 EOF amr(7d) 4.3. In Scope: Removal of amr(7d) from ON 4.4. Out of Scope: All other removals 4.5. Interfaces: None. 4.6. Doc Impact: The amr(7d) manpage will be removed, tracked under a separate CR. 4.7. Admin/Config Impact: Any customers still using devices driven by amr(7d) will need to migrate to using a glm(7d)-based HBA for those devices, or upgrade to hardware that was last sold more recently than 2004. 4.8. HA Impact: None: amr(7d) is not supported in HA environments. 4.9. I18N/L10N Impact: No. 4.10. Packaging & Delivery: Package driver/storage-amr will be obsoleted. 4.11. Security Impact: not applicable 4.12. Dependencies: no dependencies on other projects or products. 5. Reference Documents: None. 6. Resources and Schedule: 6.1. Projected Availability: ARC and C/P-team approval + 1 build. 6.2. Cost of Effort: 1 engineer for 2 weeks. 6.3. Cost of Capital Resources: Not applicable. 6.4. Product Approval Committee requested information: 6.4.1. Consolidation or Component Name: Consolidation: OS/Net, component: amr(7d) 6.4.3. Type of CPT Review and Approval expected: Fasttrack 6.4.4. Project Boundary Conditions: n/a 6.4.5. Is this a necessary project for OEM agreements: No 6.4.6. Notes: None 6.4.7. Target RTI Date/Release: Target onnv build is 145. 6.4.8. Target Code Design Review Date: 6.4.9. Update approval addition: // Did this project have prior Solaris PAC approval for a // Marketing Release and now your requesting to go into an // Update Release or Early Access CD? 6.5. ARC review type: Fasttrack 6.6. ARC Exposure: Closed 6.6.1. Rationale: We don't gain anything by making this an Open case. 7. Prototype Availability: 7.1. Prototype Availability: n/a 7.2. Prototype Cost: n/a From sacadmin Mon Jun 28 20:53:02 2010 Received: from dm-sfbay-01.sfbay.sun.com (dm-sfbay-01.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.118]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5T3r2D7002270 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:53:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com (brmea-mail-2.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by dm-sfbay-01.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.4) with ESMTP id o5T3r2Bl024252 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:53:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcsinet13.oracle.com (rcsinet13.oracle.com [148.87.113.125]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id o5T3r1gU028917; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 03:53:01 GMT Received: from acsmt354.oracle.com (acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154]) by rcsinet13.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o5SL9ZES010112; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 03:52:59 GMT Received: from abhmt019.oracle.com by acsmt354.oracle.com with ESMTP id 364425581277783518; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:51:58 -0700 Received: from [129.145.155.53] (/129.145.155.53) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:51:58 -0700 Message-ID: <4C296DDD.5070806@oracle.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:51:57 -0700 From: Alan Coopersmith User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090926) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Randy Fishel CC: PSARC@sac.sfbay.sun.com, david.lobdell@oracle.com, vicki.abe@oracle.com, Michelle.Lei@sun.com, fred.herard@oracle.com, Jie.Cao@sun.com, Xun.Ni@sun.com, david.re@oracle.com, connie.vazquezimler@oracle.com Subject: Re: EOF amr [PSARC/2010/245 Self Review] References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090202.4C296E1C.0135:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 Status: RO Content-Length: 2631 Randy Fishel wrote: > > I am sponsoring this case on behalf of James McPherson for the total removal > of the amr driver. The hardware has been unavailable for a number of years, > and the ability to test this platform has become extremely challenging due > to platform support. We believe this qualifies as a self-review, but will change it if requested. The release binding is patch. While I'm not an ARC member, and thus won't expect you to change on my account, I find it extremely strange to ask for violation of long standing EOF policy (removal from Minor only, not Patch) without any review. > The amr(7d) driver supports the MegaRAID cards which were commonly > sold as Dell 3DC/4SC/4DC/4Di series hbas. These cards have not been > available for purchase since approximately mid-2004. > > Based on enquiries within the OpenSolaris community, and a review > of hardware supported by amr(7d), we find that it has not been > possible for customers to acquire this hardware as new from the > vendor since before the start of OpenSolaris. Those who are still > running such hardware are considered unlikely to be running > OpenSolaris or any Solaris 10 update. Considering that Solaris 10 was released in January 2005, it does not seem that unlikely that customers are running Solaris 10 on hardware that was available in 2004. It would be a much more compelling argument if you could site Explorer or similar statistics showing that no supported customers are using this hardware. Otherwise you're not saving the company money, just shifting the cost and support burden from one director to another, as you then force maintaining a new support tail based on Solaris 10 Update 9 for customers with this hardware, and prevent services from being able to tell customers to upgrade to new releases to get fixes, and break the update release model such that ISV's no longer accept that testing/certification on any Solaris 10 update release applies to all later ones, since we don't remove support in updates. > 3.5. Opportunity Window/Exposure: > > Now. We need to have these gates removed before Beta-1 of > Solaris Next in order to make sure that we comply with the > existing EOF policies. That is not the Solaris P-Team policy - has ON's C-Team insituted stricter rules than the rest of the OS? ("Dev Complete" for Solaris 11 is currently set to the Beta 2 date, not Beta 1, and the P-Team has discussed setting the cutoff for EOF removals to be 6 months before FCS.) -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith@oracle.com Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System From sacadmin Mon Jun 28 21:06:26 2010 Received: from grimmy.eng.sun.com (grimmy.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.108.114]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5T46Qq7002758 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:06:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grimmy.eng.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grimmy.eng.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5T43u3K022169; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:03:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (randyf@localhost) by grimmy.eng.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/Submit) with ESMTP id o5T43uVM022165; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:03:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: grimmy.eng.sun.com: randyf owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:03:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Randy Fishel X-X-Sender: randyf@grimmy To: Alan Coopersmith cc: Randy Fishel , PSARC@sac.sfbay.sun.com, david.lobdell@oracle.com, vicki.abe@oracle.com, Michelle.Lei@sun.com, fred.herard@oracle.com, Jie.Cao@sun.com, Xun.Ni@sun.com, david.re@oracle.com, connie.vazquezimler@oracle.com Subject: Re: EOF amr [PSARC/2010/245 FastTrack timeout 07/06/2010] In-Reply-To: <4C296DDD.5070806@oracle.com> Message-ID: References: <4C296DDD.5070806@oracle.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (GSO 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO Content-Length: 3072 On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Randy Fishel wrote: > > > > I am sponsoring this case on behalf of James McPherson for the > > total removal of the amr driver. The hardware has been > > unavailable for a number of years, and the ability to test this > > platform has become extremely challenging due to platform support. > > We believe this qualifies as a self-review, but will change it if > > requested. The release binding is patch. > > While I'm not an ARC member, and thus won't expect you to change on > my account, I find it extremely strange to ask for violation of long > standing EOF policy (removal from Minor only, not Patch) without any > review. I don't believe that a self review request to change to a fasttrack requires an ARC member to make the request (unless the request is to derail). As this message indicates a review request, I have changed this to a fasttrack, timeout 7/06/2010. ---- Randy > > > The amr(7d) driver supports the MegaRAID cards which were commonly > > sold as Dell 3DC/4SC/4DC/4Di series hbas. These cards have not been > > available for purchase since approximately mid-2004. > > > > Based on enquiries within the OpenSolaris community, and a review > > of hardware supported by amr(7d), we find that it has not been > > possible for customers to acquire this hardware as new from the > > vendor since before the start of OpenSolaris. Those who are still > > running such hardware are considered unlikely to be running > > OpenSolaris or any Solaris 10 update. > > Considering that Solaris 10 was released in January 2005, it does > not seem that unlikely that customers are running Solaris 10 on > hardware that was available in 2004. It would be a much more > compelling argument if you could site Explorer or similar statistics > showing that no supported customers are using this hardware. > > Otherwise you're not saving the company money, just shifting the cost and > support burden from one director to another, as you then force maintaining > a new support tail based on Solaris 10 Update 9 for customers with this > hardware, and prevent services from being able to tell customers to upgrade > to new releases to get fixes, and break the update release model such that > ISV's no longer accept that testing/certification on any Solaris 10 update > release applies to all later ones, since we don't remove support in updates. > > > 3.5. Opportunity Window/Exposure: > > > > Now. We need to have these gates removed before Beta-1 of > > Solaris Next in order to make sure that we comply with the > > existing EOF policies. > > That is not the Solaris P-Team policy - has ON's C-Team insituted > stricter rules than the rest of the OS? ("Dev Complete" for > Solaris 11 is currently set to the Beta 2 date, not Beta 1, and > the P-Team has discussed setting the cutoff for EOF removals to be > 6 months before FCS.) > > > -- > -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith@oracle.com > Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System > From sacadmin Mon Jun 28 21:12:11 2010 Received: from dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com (dm-sfbay-02.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.31]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5T4CBCk002817 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com (brmea-mail-4.Sun.COM [192.18.98.36]) by dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.4) with ESMTP id o5T4C9Ep023471 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcsinet13.oracle.com (rcsinet13.oracle.com [148.87.113.125]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id o5T4C99V028086; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 04:12:09 GMT Received: from acsmt353.oracle.com (acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153]) by rcsinet13.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o5T4C8Hq011038; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 04:12:08 GMT Received: from abhmt013.oracle.com by acsmt353.oracle.com with ESMTP id 381269061277784668; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:11:08 -0700 Received: from [10.7.251.162] (/10.7.251.162) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:11:07 -0700 Message-ID: <4C297255.7060904@oracle.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:11:01 +1000 From: "James C. McPherson" Reply-To: James.McPherson@oracle.com Organization: Oracle User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100607 Lightning/1.0b1 OracleBeehiveExtension/1.0.0.0pre8 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan Coopersmith CC: Randy Fishel , PSARC@sac.sfbay.sun.com, david.lobdell@oracle.com, vicki.abe@oracle.com, Michelle.Lei@sun.com, fred.herard@oracle.com, Jie.Cao@sun.com, Xun.Ni@sun.com, david.re@oracle.com, connie.vazquezimler@oracle.com Subject: Re: EOF amr [PSARC/2010/245 Self Review] References: <4C296DDD.5070806@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <4C296DDD.5070806@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090208.4C297298.01B9:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 Status: RO Content-Length: 3294 On 29/06/10 01:51 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Randy Fishel wrote: >> >> I am sponsoring this case on behalf of James McPherson for the total removal >> of the amr driver. The hardware has been unavailable for a number of years, >> and the ability to test this platform has become extremely challenging due >> to platform support. We believe this qualifies as a self-review, but will change it if requested. The release binding is patch. > > While I'm not an ARC member, and thus won't expect you to change on my account, > I find it extremely strange to ask for violation of long standing EOF policy > (removal from Minor only, not Patch) without any review. I'm not averse to setting a timer, though I was hoping that it wouldn't be necessary. >> The amr(7d) driver supports the MegaRAID cards which were commonly >> sold as Dell 3DC/4SC/4DC/4Di series hbas. These cards have not been >> available for purchase since approximately mid-2004. >> >> Based on enquiries within the OpenSolaris community, and a review >> of hardware supported by amr(7d), we find that it has not been >> possible for customers to acquire this hardware as new from the >> vendor since before the start of OpenSolaris. Those who are still >> running such hardware are considered unlikely to be running >> OpenSolaris or any Solaris 10 update. > > Considering that Solaris 10 was released in January 2005, it does not seem that > unlikely that customers are running Solaris 10 on hardware that was available in > 2004. It would be a much more compelling argument if you could site Explorer > or similar statistics showing that no supported customers are using this hardware. My sunsolve searches found only one radiance or ibis case logged, where the amr driver was in use, from October 2007. > Otherwise you're not saving the company money, just shifting the cost and > support burden from one director to another, as you then force maintaining > a new support tail based on Solaris 10 Update 9 for customers with this > hardware, and prevent services from being able to tell customers to upgrade > to new releases to get fixes, and break the update release model such that > ISV's no longer accept that testing/certification on any Solaris 10 update > release applies to all later ones, since we don't remove support in updates. Noted. In the preliminary discussions that I had with RPE about EOFing this driver, ncrs and the ihv/ihv-bin gates, removal from S10U10 was requested. >> 3.5. Opportunity Window/Exposure: >> >> Now. We need to have these gates removed before Beta-1 of >> Solaris Next in order to make sure that we comply with the >> existing EOF policies. > > That is not the Solaris P-Team policy - has ON's C-Team insituted > stricter rules than the rest of the OS? ("Dev Complete" for > Solaris 11 is currently set to the Beta 2 date, not Beta 1, and > the P-Team has discussed setting the cutoff for EOF removals to be > 6 months before FCS.) The latest word that I have on the Solaris Next schedule talks about Beta 1 followed by "rolling betas" - timing and extent of which are to be determined. I'm shooting for what I actually have some visibility of :-) cheers, James -- Senior Software Engineer, Solaris Oracle http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog From sacadmin Mon Jun 28 21:42:37 2010 Received: from dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com (dm-sfbay-02.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.31]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5T4gbAt002956 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:42:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-ea-mail-2.sun.com (sca-ea-mail-2.Sun.COM [192.18.43.25]) by dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.4) with ESMTP id o5T4gbaP029240 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:42:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by sca-ea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id o5T4gV0j012936; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 04:42:31 GMT Received: from acsmt354.oracle.com (acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o5T4gT5S017959; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 04:42:29 GMT Received: from abhmt020.oracle.com by acsmt355.oracle.com with ESMTP id 364513841277786512; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:41:52 -0700 Received: from [129.145.155.53] (/129.145.155.53) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:41:51 -0700 Message-ID: <4C29798E.3050602@oracle.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:41:50 -0700 From: Alan Coopersmith User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090926) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James.McPherson@oracle.com CC: Randy Fishel , PSARC@sac.sfbay.sun.com, david.lobdell@oracle.com, vicki.abe@oracle.com, Michelle.Lei@sun.com, fred.herard@oracle.com, Jie.Cao@sun.com, Xun.Ni@sun.com, david.re@oracle.com, connie.vazquezimler@oracle.com Subject: Re: EOF amr [PSARC/2010/245 Self Review] References: <4C296DDD.5070806@oracle.com> <4C297255.7060904@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <4C297255.7060904@oracle.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090205.4C2979B6.024E:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 Status: RO Content-Length: 1645 James C. McPherson wrote: > On 29/06/10 01:51 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote: >> Otherwise you're not saving the company money, just shifting the cost and >> support burden from one director to another, as you then force >> maintaining >> a new support tail based on Solaris 10 Update 9 for customers with this >> hardware, and prevent services from being able to tell customers to >> upgrade >> to new releases to get fixes, and break the update release model such >> that >> ISV's no longer accept that testing/certification on any Solaris 10 >> update >> release applies to all later ones, since we don't remove support in >> updates. > > Noted. In the preliminary discussions that I had with RPE about EOFing > this driver, ncrs and the ihv/ihv-bin gates, removal from S10U10 was > requested. Doing it for an entire gate, like IHV, would be less costly to maintain, since then you just build any patches for customers from that gate, instead of having to fork a new copy of a ongoing gate such as ON for Solaris 10 patches for customers stuck on Solaris 10 U9 forever since you removed a driver they rely on. I still can't believe anyone requesting this has thought through the full effects and costs of ending the reliance on "the latest update release of Solaris 10 works for any Solaris 10 customer" model for support and ISV/IHV certification. If you do a radiance search for how many support cases start out with "Asked the customer to upgrade to the latest Solaris 10 update" I wonder how high a percentage you'd hit. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith@oracle.com Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System From sacadmin Tue Jun 29 17:54:55 2010 Received: from dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com (dm-sfbay-02.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.31]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5U0stB2020749 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:54:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-ea-mail-1.sun.com (sca-ea-mail-1.Sun.COM [192.18.43.24]) by dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.4) with ESMTP id o5U0stJx003897 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:54:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by sca-ea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id o5U0sn20023550; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:54:50 GMT Received: from acsmt355.oracle.com (acsmt355.oracle.com [141.146.40.155]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o5TIu8CD027223; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:54:48 GMT Received: from abhmt001.oracle.com by acsmt353.oracle.com with ESMTP id 384371271277859273; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:54:33 -0700 Received: from [10.7.251.162] (/10.7.251.162) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:54:32 -0700 Message-ID: <4C2A95C3.6020404@oracle.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:27 +1000 From: "James C. McPherson" Reply-To: James.McPherson@oracle.com Organization: Oracle User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100607 Lightning/1.0b1 OracleBeehiveExtension/1.0.0.0pre8 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Randy Fishel CC: PSARC@sac.sfbay.sun.com, david.lobdell@oracle.com, vicki.abe@oracle.com, Michelle.Lei@sun.com, fred.herard@oracle.com, Jie.Cao@sun.com, Xun.Ni@sun.com, david.re@oracle.com, connie.vazquezimler@oracle.com Subject: Re: EOF amr [PSARC/2010/245 Self Review] References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: acsmt355.oracle.com [141.146.40.155] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090205.4C2A95D9.0108:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 Status: RO Content-Length: 6461 On 29/06/10 01:27 PM, Randy Fishel wrote: > > > I am sponsoring this case on behalf of James McPherson for the total removal > of the amr driver. The hardware has been unavailable for a number of years, > and the ability to test this platform has become extremely challenging due > to platform support. We believe this qualifies as a self-review, but will change it if requested. The release binding is patch. Hi Randy, after some discussion off-list, I would like to change the binding of this request from patch to Minor. Thankyou, James > Template Version: @(#)onepager.txt 1.36 10/02/16 SMI > Copyright 2007 Sun Microsystems > > > 1. Introduction > 1.1. Project/Component Working Name: > > EOF amr(7d) > > > 1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier: > > James.McPherson@oracle.com > > 1.3. Date of This Document: > 2010-June-29 > > 1.3.1. Date this project was conceived: > > 2010-June-28 > > 1.4. Name of Major Document Customer(s)/Consumer(s): > 1.4.1. The PAC or CPT you expect to review your project: > > Solaris PAC > > 1.4.2. The ARC(s) you expect to review your project: > > PSARC > > 1.4.3. The Director/VP who is "Sponsoring" this project: > > Andy Roach > Chris Armes > > 1.4.4. The name of your business unit: > > Solaris > > > 1.5. Email Aliases: > 1.5.1. Responsible Manager: David.Re@oracle.com > 1.5.2. Responsible Engineer: James.McPherson@oracle.com > 1.5.3. Marketing Manager: Chris.Z.Baker@oracle.com > 1.5.4. Interest List: Connie.Vazquezimler@oracle.com > > > 2. Project Summary > 2.1. Project Description: > > We wish to entirely remove amr(7d) from Solaris Next and Solaris > 10 Update 10. > > A patch binding is requested. > > > > 2.2. Risks and Assumptions: > > The amr(7d) driver supports the MegaRAID cards which were commonly > sold as Dell 3DC/4SC/4DC/4Di series hbas. These cards have not been > available for purchase since approximately mid-2004. > > Based on enquiries within the OpenSolaris community, and a review > of hardware supported by amr(7d), we find that it has not been > possible for customers to acquire this hardware as new from the > vendor since before the start of OpenSolaris. Those who are still > running such hardware are considered unlikely to be running > OpenSolaris or any Solaris 10 update. > > > 3. Business Summary > > 3.1. Problem Area: > > It is no longer possible to acquire the hardware which is > supported by amr(7d). Testing this code is problematic due to lack > of hardware - so its existence is an extra burden for ON-PIT. > > Having unmaintained and untestable code closely associated with > onnv and on10-{feature-}patch is dangerous, since the code > rots without regular care and feeding. This decreases the > quality of our deliveries. > > > 3.2. Market/Requester: > > Solaris RPE > Solaris x64 Platform Software Engineering > > 3.3. Business Justification: > > We can increase the quality of our deliveries (OS/Net) by > removing this code. We can decrease the burden for ON-PIT > by removing this code. > > Keeping this code alive takes cycles away from supporting > hardware that hasn't passed its EOSL date. > > > 3.4. Competitive Analysis: > > The hardware for the amr(7d) has been EOSLd by the manufacturers. > Customers who really wish to use this family of parallel SCSI > hba should use the glm(7d) driver instead. > > > 3.5. Opportunity Window/Exposure: > > Now. We need to have these gates removed before Beta-1 of > Solaris Next in order to make sure that we comply with the > existing EOF policies. > > > 3.6. How will you know when you are done?: > > We will be complete when the driver is removed from ON's source tree. > > > 4. Technical Description: > 4.1. Details: > > The current onnv-gate gatekeeper (James.McPherson@oracle.com) > will handle the removal, and will use the CR in 4.2 to > track the onnv-gate changes required. > > > 4.2. Bug/RFE Number(s): > > 6964870 EOF amr(7d) > > > 4.3. In Scope: > > Removal of amr(7d) from ON > > 4.4. Out of Scope: > > All other removals > > 4.5. Interfaces: > > None. > > 4.6. Doc Impact: > > The amr(7d) manpage will be removed, tracked under a separate CR. > > 4.7. Admin/Config Impact: > > Any customers still using devices driven by amr(7d) will need > to migrate to using a glm(7d)-based HBA for those devices, or > upgrade to hardware that was last sold more recently than 2004. > > 4.8. HA Impact: > > None: amr(7d) is not supported in HA environments. > > 4.9. I18N/L10N Impact: > > No. > > 4.10. Packaging& Delivery: > > Package driver/storage-amr will be obsoleted. > > 4.11. Security Impact: > > not applicable > > 4.12. Dependencies: > > no dependencies on other projects or products. > > 5. Reference Documents: > > None. > > 6. Resources and Schedule: > 6.1. Projected Availability: > > ARC and C/P-team approval + 1 build. > > 6.2. Cost of Effort: > > 1 engineer for 2 weeks. > > 6.3. Cost of Capital Resources: > > Not applicable. > > 6.4. Product Approval Committee requested information: > 6.4.1. Consolidation or Component Name: > > Consolidation: OS/Net, component: amr(7d) > > 6.4.3. Type of CPT Review and Approval expected: > > Fasttrack > > 6.4.4. Project Boundary Conditions: > > n/a > > 6.4.5. Is this a necessary project for OEM agreements: > > No > > 6.4.6. Notes: > > None > > 6.4.7. Target RTI Date/Release: > > Target onnv build is 145. > > 6.4.8. Target Code Design Review Date: > 6.4.9. Update approval addition: > // Did this project have prior Solaris PAC approval for a > // Marketing Release and now your requesting to go into an > // Update Release or Early Access CD? > > 6.5. ARC review type: > > Fasttrack > > 6.6. ARC Exposure: > > Closed > > 6.6.1. Rationale: > > We don't gain anything by making this an Open case. > > > 7. Prototype Availability: > 7.1. Prototype Availability: > > n/a > > 7.2. Prototype Cost: > > n/a -- James C. McPherson -- Senior Software Engineer, Solaris Oracle http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog From sacadmin Tue Jun 29 18:13:19 2010 Received: from dm-sfbay-01.sfbay.sun.com (dm-sfbay-01.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.118]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5U1DJ08021189 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:13:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com (brmea-mail-4.Sun.COM [192.18.98.36]) by dm-sfbay-01.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.4) with ESMTP id o5U1DJjI013298 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:13:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id o5U1DIXD002173; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 01:13:18 GMT Received: from acsmt354.oracle.com (acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o5U09MM5027772; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 01:13:17 GMT Received: from abhmt007.oracle.com by acsmt354.oracle.com with ESMTP id 384400091277860276; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:11:16 -0700 Received: from [129.145.155.53] (/129.145.155.53) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:11:15 -0700 Message-ID: <4C2A99B1.30308@oracle.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:11:13 -0700 From: Alan Coopersmith User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090926) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James.McPherson@oracle.com CC: Randy Fishel , PSARC@sac.sfbay.sun.com, david.lobdell@oracle.com, vicki.abe@oracle.com, Michelle.Lei@sun.com, fred.herard@oracle.com, Jie.Cao@sun.com, Xun.Ni@sun.com, david.re@oracle.com, connie.vazquezimler@oracle.com Subject: Re: EOF amr [PSARC/2010/245 Self Review] References: <4C2A95C3.6020404@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <4C2A95C3.6020404@oracle.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090202.4C2A9A2E.009B:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 Status: RO Content-Length: 891 James C. McPherson wrote: > On 29/06/10 01:27 PM, Randy Fishel wrote: >> >> >> I am sponsoring this case on behalf of James McPherson for the total >> removal >> of the amr driver. The hardware has been unavailable for a number of >> years, >> and the ability to test this platform has become extremely challenging >> due >> to platform support. We believe this qualifies as a self-review, but >> will change it if requested. The release binding is patch. > > Hi Randy, > after some discussion off-list, I would like to change the binding > of this request from patch to Minor. With a release binding of Minor for removal (and presumably announcement in the Updates/Patch release), my concerns are completely satisfied (and I'd even be happy with self-review for that). -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith@oracle.com Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System From sacadmin Wed Jun 30 09:30:17 2010 Received: from dm-sfbay-01.sfbay.sun.com (dm-sfbay-01.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.118]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5UGUHnh029562 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:30:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-ea-mail-4.sun.com (sca-ea-mail-4.Sun.COM [192.18.43.22]) by dm-sfbay-01.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.4) with ESMTP id o5UGUHKD003148 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:30:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcsinet13.oracle.com (rcsinet13.oracle.com [148.87.113.125]) by sca-ea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id o5UGUG1F029547; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:30:17 GMT Received: from acsmt354.oracle.com (acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154]) by rcsinet13.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o5UCiQ2x021934; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:30:12 GMT Received: from abhmt021.oracle.com by acsmt354.oracle.com with ESMTP id 370482321277915340; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:29:00 -0700 Received: from [129.148.174.103] (/129.148.174.103) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:28:58 -0700 Message-ID: <4C2B70C7.6040207@oracle.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:28:55 -0400 From: Sebastien Roy User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100607 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James.McPherson@oracle.com CC: Randy Fishel , PSARC@sac.sfbay.sun.com, david.lobdell@oracle.com, vicki.abe@oracle.com, Michelle.Lei@sun.com, fred.herard@oracle.com, Jie.Cao@sun.com, Xun.Ni@sun.com, david.re@oracle.com, connie.vazquezimler@oracle.com Subject: Re: EOF amr [PSARC/2010/245 Self Review] References: <4C2A95C3.6020404@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <4C2A95C3.6020404@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090202.4C2B7118.00AD:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 Status: RO Content-Length: 165 On 06/29/10 08:54 PM, James C. McPherson wrote: > after some discussion off-list, I would like to change the binding > of this request from patch to Minor. +1 -Seb From garrett@damore.org Wed Jul 7 09:59:25 2010 Received: from sunmail6brm.central.sun.com (sunmail6brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.169]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o67GxPHV008910 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2010 09:59:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail6brm.central.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.4) with ESMTP id o67GxM0I007326 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:PSARC-ext@sun.com>; Wed, 7 Jul 2010 11:59:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0L5700J255V14Y00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Wed, 07 Jul 2010 09:59:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.98.31]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0L5700AD15V0IKB0@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Wed, 07 Jul 2010 09:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay11i.sun.com (ip121.net129179-4.block1.us.syntegra.com [129.179.4.121]) by brmea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id o67GvF0J001051 for ; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:59:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mmp13es.mmp.us.syntegra.com ([160.41.208.13] [160.41.208.13]) by relay11i.sun.com with ESMTP id BT-MMP-386378 for PSARC-ext@sun.com; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:59:20 +0000 (Z) Received: from relay13i.sun.com (relay13i.sun.com [129.179.4.123]) by mmp13es.mmp.us.syntegra.com with ESMTP id BT-MMP-14684076 for PSARC-ext@sun.com; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:59:20 +0000 (Z) Received: from oproxy3-pub.bluehost.com ([69.89.21.8] [69.89.21.8]) by relay1i.sun.com id BT-MMP-59326012 for PSARC-ext@sun.com; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:59:20 +0000 (Z) Received: (qmail 12658 invoked by uid 0); Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:59:19 +0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box374.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.174) by oproxy3.bluehost.com with SMTP; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:59:18 +0000 Received: from cpe-76-93-15-33.socal.res.rr.com ([76.93.15.33] helo=[192.168.251.110]) by box374.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (SSLv3:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OWXxu-000225-0H for PSARC-ext@sun.com; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 10:59:18 -0600 Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 10:00:00 -0700 From: "Garrett D'Amore" Subject: PSARC 2010/245 EOF of amr To: PSARC-ext Message-id: <1278522000.2510.44.camel@velocity> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=damore.org; h=Received:Subject:From:To:Content-Type:Date:Message-ID:Mime-Version:X-Mailer:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=E5tVRx4hL6XDwWSrc9odCcXWfLtDBs94u12nXfBGJRiR3sMFyCUQnErwgrpMV6oqjS/3+cyaoPMTdzsmj3MK5tUnKw3Gz24RbSI7sm/B2mj3yxdo6sTYExaf7PfDf06o; X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Identified-User: {2225:box374.bluehost.com:damoreor:damore.org} {sentby:smtp auth 76.93.15.33 authed with garrett+damore.org} X-Antispam: No, score=0.0/5.0, scanned in 0.106sec at (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smf-spamd v1.3.1 - http://smfs.sf.net/ Status: RO Content-Length: 1277 I'm a bit concerned that we may be premature in EOF'ing AMR. While *Sun* customers probably didn't use this driver on Sun hardware, the driver remains in the open source tree, and appears to have been sold by Dell fairly recently. If Oracle wants to elide this driver from Solaris 11 or Solaris Next or whatever, that doesn't concern me -- especially if Oracle is going to choose to only support a subset of systems that could run potentially run the OS. However, as an OpenSource product, I remain unconvinced that adequate information about the usage of this driver has been collected. Its *possible* that nobody ever used it, but that seems somewhat unlikely. As the source is open, and the driver conforms to the SCSA DDK, I would think that the cost of sustaining on this driver would be very small indeed. If we're going to EOF this driver now, then I think we wind up with a level 0 question about support for "semi-legacy" hardware in the OS. Is Oracle going to ditch support for all hardware that it hasn't sold? Or hardware that customers aren't reporting problems with? How recently sold on the market does hardware have to be to be considered viable for OpenSolaris? 1 year? 2 years? How is a popularity contest on the drivers determined? - Garrett From olga.kryzhanovska@gmail.com Wed Jul 7 16:19:45 2010 Received: from sunmail6brm.central.sun.com (sunmail6brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.169]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o67NJjiY020568 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:19:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail6brm.central.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.4) with ESMTP id o67NJhtF012156 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:PSARC-ext@sun.com>; Wed, 7 Jul 2010 18:19:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0L5700M0HNGWZZ00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:19:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.98.43]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0L57004J5NGVZTE0@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:19:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay14i.sun.com (ip124.net129179-4.block1.us.syntegra.com [129.179.4.124]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id o67N1MNU028499 for ; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:19:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mmp12es.mmp.us.syntegra.com ([160.41.208.12] [160.41.208.12]) by relay14i.sun.com with ESMTP id BT-MMP-6472366 for PSARC-ext@sun.com; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:19:43 +0000 (Z) Received: from relay14i.sun.com (relay14i.sun.com [129.179.4.124]) by mmp12es.mmp.us.syntegra.com with ESMTP id BT-MMP-15400039 for PSARC-ext@sun.com; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:19:43 +0000 (Z) Received: from mail-iw0-f177.google.com ([209.85.214.177] [209.85.214.177]) by relay1i.sun.com with ESMTP id BT-MMP-31771548 for PSARC-ext@sun.com; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:19:43 +0000 (Z) Received: by iwn40 with SMTP id 40so238749iwn.8 for ; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:19:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.39.201 with SMTP id h9mr7027564ibe.118.1278544782578; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:19:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.14.198 with HTTP; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:19:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 01:19:42 +0200 From: =?KOI8-R?B?z8zYx8Egy9LZ1sHOz9fTy8HR?= Subject: Re: PSARC 2010/245 EOF of amr In-reply-to: <1278522000.2510.44.camel@velocity> To: "Garrett D'Amore" Cc: PSARC-ext Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=3ikMIrp11NrP5JFBee8TSTDVaQBRYv+EQlf0b0PmjSk=; b=Jl8HKnCSz1SXGjhAK282/XtClrQrUBjz5jANfBl6Kjc7jJa5z9NnhrMn00LKIz8sfb DWQ89ORSCaZ0Jf5SoA87FTZ0FWyxydBmm5lKgA80VRDtE8GVuFt2azSkzb6OmxBuCbJY ti3ahOOnXzqnzGqAYQyuyGg92aFKuZp1LdC8o= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=ZOYaKTzpndVy5OqG4QGPTqS7TJ22l3vmDCE1MLN01cgIhH0JTPwTi3A/+RikWYggTN DDnEwtRMdklzb8bcYKH1Yp7myU8GNkw9NE3CVq2V3Y+lhSzFmzAcJp41eiqn6JPsff9m z87Ii5bHWtaPba5wljatVBo55BPSimkIcbMVQ= X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Antispam: No, score=-0.7/5.0, scanned in 0.080sec at (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smf-spamd v1.3.1 - http://smfs.sf.net/ References: <1278522000.2510.44.camel@velocity> Status: RO Content-Length: 1934 What about your concerns for 3rd party vendors and the community? Olga On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > I'm a bit concerned that we may be premature in EOF'ing AMR. While > *Sun* customers probably didn't use this driver on Sun hardware, the > driver remains in the open source tree, and appears to have been sold > by Dell fairly recently. > > If Oracle wants to elide this driver from Solaris 11 or Solaris Next or > whatever, that doesn't concern me -- especially if Oracle is going to > choose to only support a subset of systems that could run potentially > run the OS. > > However, as an OpenSource product, I remain unconvinced that adequate > information about the usage of this driver has been collected. Its > *possible* that nobody ever used it, but that seems somewhat unlikely. > > As the source is open, and the driver conforms to the SCSA DDK, I would > think that the cost of sustaining on this driver would be very small > indeed. > > If we're going to EOF this driver now, then I think we wind up with a > level 0 question about support for "semi-legacy" hardware in the OS. Is > Oracle going to ditch support for all hardware that it hasn't sold? Or > hardware that customers aren't reporting problems with? How recently > sold on the market does hardware have to be to be considered viable for > OpenSolaris? 1 year? 2 years? > > How is a popularity contest on the drivers determined? > > - Garrett > > _______________________________________________ > opensolaris-arc mailing list > opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org > -- , _ _ , { \/`o;====- Olga Kryzhanovska -====;o`\/ } .----'-/`-/ olga.kryzhanovska@gmail.com \-`\-'----. `'-..-| / http://twitter.com/fleyta \ |-..-'` /\/\ Solaris/BSD//C/C++ programmer /\/\ `--` `--` From olga.kryzhanovska@gmail.com Wed Jul 7 16:20:48 2010 Received: from sunmail6brm.central.sun.com (sunmail6brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.169]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o67NKlbw020585 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:20:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail6brm.central.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.4) with ESMTP id o67NKlkd012564 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:PSARC-ext@sun.com>; Wed, 7 Jul 2010 18:20:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0L5700G07NINGD00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:20:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-ea-mail-3.sun.com ([192.18.43.21]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0L57005HFNIN8W60@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:20:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay44i.sun.com ([192.5.209.118]) by sca-ea-mail-3.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id o67NKkZL005793 for ; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:20:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mms48es.mms.us.syntegra.com ([160.41.221.230] [160.41.221.230]) by relay44i.sun.com with ESMTP id BT-MMP-28185 for PSARC-ext@sun.com; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:20:46 +0000 (Z) Received: from relay43i.sun.com (relay43i.sun.com [192.5.209.74]) by mms48es.mms.us.syntegra.com with ESMTP id BT-MMP-13036024 for PSARC-ext@sun.com; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:20:46 +0000 (Z) Received: from mail-iw0-f177.google.com ([209.85.214.177] [209.85.214.177]) by relay4i.sun.com with ESMTP id BT-MMP-342098 for PSARC-ext@sun.com; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:20:46 +0000 (Z) Received: by iwn40 with SMTP id 40so239433iwn.8 for ; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:20:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.193.11 with SMTP id ds11mr6910447ibb.192.1278544831781; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:20:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.14.198 with HTTP; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:20:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 01:20:31 +0200 From: =?KOI8-R?B?z8zYx8Egy9LZ1sHOz9fTy8HR?= Subject: Re: PSARC 2010/245 EOF of amr In-reply-to: To: "Garrett D'Amore" Cc: PSARC-ext Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=T7LKhVSoaRUSjxxuVyxWSBltk7Yf/Wa2d3fnrUzwZrk=; b=ZQ5skgPo/Am0zJNOgH+Se8WUZ1Furx+oXavaGTtO58cikyK1Cb6d5t2AxDnoLUb8F0 axbVR3vBuLe1140njCDGvNiZWaUanz5hbDj9NpKGIJGebcjDb9INU99GoxqM2n+xhY+8 XWZy8N2fldhpHepR9jhgA7ISGD2Obop7HI8Sg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=xMJ0f0cYeIv0Fu+z2oUI+x62HVVRKAMbwRYYBeMTZvZgFqNyRkGS8XRlm4ZIkS1Ss/ Q5vCn/F4mKFB5MgOuBYqU9bh/5SxQNpX5f0VHqbEifXGlInFZk8qCH10AHSkyEIWcuux HPkCpF1Rl/iRhikhYarM1i0UO61upI5GhGK60= X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Antispam: No, score=-2.6/5.0, scanned in 0.161sec at (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smf-spamd v1.3.1 - http://smfs.sf.net/ References: <1278522000.2510.44.camel@velocity> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sac.sfbay.sun.com id o67NKlbw020585 Status: RO Content-Length: 2493 The comment was in reply to your mail to Asa about closing this case. Sorry for the out of order mail. Olga 2010/7/8 : > What about your concerns for 3rd party vendors and the community? > > Olga > > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: >> I'm a bit concerned that we may be premature in EOF'ing AMR. While >> *Sun* customers probably didn't use this driver on Sun hardware, the >> driver remains in the open source tree, and appears to have been sold >> by Dell fairly recently. >> >> If Oracle wants to elide this driver from Solaris 11 or Solaris Next or >> whatever, that doesn't concern me -- especially if Oracle is going to >> choose to only support a subset of systems that could run potentially >> run the OS. >> >> However, as an OpenSource product, I remain unconvinced that adequate >> information about the usage of this driver has been collected. Its >> *possible* that nobody ever used it, but that seems somewhat unlikely. >> >> As the source is open, and the driver conforms to the SCSA DDK, I would >> think that the cost of sustaining on this driver would be very small >> indeed. >> >> If we're going to EOF this driver now, then I think we wind up with a >> level 0 question about support for "semi-legacy" hardware in the OS. Is >> Oracle going to ditch support for all hardware that it hasn't sold? Or >> hardware that customers aren't reporting problems with? How recently >> sold on the market does hardware have to be to be considered viable for >> OpenSolaris? 1 year? 2 years? >> >> How is a popularity contest on the drivers determined? >> >> - Garrett >> >> _______________________________________________ >> opensolaris-arc mailing list >> opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org >> > > > > -- > , _ _ , > { \/`o;====- Olga Kryzhanovska -====;o`\/ } > .----'-/`-/ olga.kryzhanovska@gmail.com \-`\-'----. > `'-..-| / http://twitter.com/fleyta \ |-..-'` > /\/\ Solaris/BSD//C/C++ programmer /\/\ > `--` `--` > -- , _ _ , { \/`o;====- Olga Kryzhanovska -====;o`\/ } .----'-/`-/ olga.kryzhanovska@gmail.com \-`\-'----. `'-..-| / http://twitter.com/fleyta \ |-..-'` /\/\ Solaris/BSD//C/C++ programmer /\/\ `--` `--` From garrett@damore.org Wed Jul 7 21:58:46 2010 Received: from sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail2sca.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.234]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o684wjYH026048 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2010 21:58:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.4) with ESMTP id o684wjxD007461 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:PSARC-ext@sun.com>; Wed, 7 Jul 2010 21:58:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0L5800A0535XUG00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:58:45 -0600 (MDT) Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com ([192.18.98.36]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0L5800HPB35XLGD0@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:58:45 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay42i.sun.com ([192.5.209.72]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id o684wi2F003484 for ; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 04:58:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mmp41es.mmp.us.syntegra.com ([160.41.221.10] [160.41.221.10]) by relay42i.sun.com with ESMTP id BT-MMP-78267 for PSARC-ext@sun.com; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 04:56:44 +0000 (Z) Received: from relay42i.sun.com (relay42i.sun.com [192.5.209.72]) by mmp41es.mmp.us.syntegra.com with ESMTP id BT-MMP-13479766 for PSARC-ext@sun.com; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 04:56:43 +0000 (Z) Received: from oproxy2-pub.bluehost.com ([67.222.39.60] [67.222.39.60]) by relay4i.sun.com id BT-MMP-3754723 for PSARC-ext@sun.com; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 04:56:43 +0000 (Z) Received: (qmail 8341 invoked by uid 0); Thu, 08 Jul 2010 04:56:42 +0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box374.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.174) by oproxy2.bluehost.com with SMTP; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 04:56:42 +0000 Received: from cpe-76-93-15-33.socal.res.rr.com ([76.93.15.33] helo=[192.168.251.110]) by box374.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (SSLv3:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OWjAA-0003cn-Be; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:56:42 -0600 Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 21:57:20 -0700 From: "Garrett D'Amore" Subject: Re: PSARC 2010/245 EOF of amr In-reply-to: To: =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=BE=D0=BB=D1=8C=D0=B3=D0=B0_?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=BA=D1=80=D1=8B=D0=B6=D0=B0=D0=BD=D0=BE=D0=B2=D1=81=D0=BA?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B0=D1=8F?= Cc: PSARC-ext Message-id: <1278565040.2510.182.camel@velocity> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=damore.org; h=Received:Subject:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date:Message-ID:Mime-Version:X-Mailer:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=BlvspSI4xQ+Tt07Q3a5K7jKuVDW3iGmJARogproYCF+fIr1fNbOEkjqFikpElXqH4s1jcyxLi5ezeWUJLirGmbUfBv6B9G3G8bSL2o8sRY+nxC/WtbWrFbSmH5QtUYYK; X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Identified-User: {2225:box374.bluehost.com:damoreor:damore.org} {sentby:smtp auth 76.93.15.33 authed with garrett+damore.org} X-Antispam: No, score=-1.1/5.0, scanned in 1.237sec at (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smf-spamd v1.3.1 - http://smfs.sf.net/ References: <1278522000.2510.44.camel@velocity> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sac.sfbay.sun.com id o684wjYH026048 Status: RO Content-Length: 2906 On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 01:20 +0200, ольга крыжановская wrote: > The comment was in reply to your mail to Asa about closing this case. > Sorry for the out of order mail. As we discussed during the meeting, Oracle declared the issue of amr a business matter. The bigger concern I have about the impact to the downstream OpenSolaris community (and the lack of a conduit back to Oracle for feedback from the community *other* than through ARC review) was deemed to be a larger issue and out of scope for this particular case. I'm not sure how we fix the process; I'm pretty sure nobody at Oracle really *wants* to fix the process. After all, it works perfectly well for Oracle's needs. -- Garrett > > Olga > > 2010/7/8 ольга крыжановская : > > What about your concerns for 3rd party vendors and the community? > > > > Olga > > > > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > >> I'm a bit concerned that we may be premature in EOF'ing AMR. While > >> *Sun* customers probably didn't use this driver on Sun hardware, the > >> driver remains in the open source tree, and appears to have been sold > >> by Dell fairly recently. > >> > >> If Oracle wants to elide this driver from Solaris 11 or Solaris Next or > >> whatever, that doesn't concern me -- especially if Oracle is going to > >> choose to only support a subset of systems that could run potentially > >> run the OS. > >> > >> However, as an OpenSource product, I remain unconvinced that adequate > >> information about the usage of this driver has been collected. Its > >> *possible* that nobody ever used it, but that seems somewhat unlikely. > >> > >> As the source is open, and the driver conforms to the SCSA DDK, I would > >> think that the cost of sustaining on this driver would be very small > >> indeed. > >> > >> If we're going to EOF this driver now, then I think we wind up with a > >> level 0 question about support for "semi-legacy" hardware in the OS. Is > >> Oracle going to ditch support for all hardware that it hasn't sold? Or > >> hardware that customers aren't reporting problems with? How recently > >> sold on the market does hardware have to be to be considered viable for > >> OpenSolaris? 1 year? 2 years? > >> > >> How is a popularity contest on the drivers determined? > >> > >> - Garrett > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> opensolaris-arc mailing list > >> opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > , _ _ , > > { \/`o;====- Olga Kryzhanovska -====;o`\/ } > > .----'-/`-/ olga.kryzhanovska@gmail.com \-`\-'----. > > `'-..-| / http://twitter.com/fleyta \ |-..-'` > > /\/\ Solaris/BSD//C/C++ programmer /\/\ > > `--` `--` > > > > > From Milan.Jurik@sun.com Thu Jul 8 00:10:10 2010 Received: from sunmail6brm.central.sun.com (sunmail6brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.169]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o687AA73019841 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 00:10:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail6brm.central.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.4) with ESMTP id o687A59d022747 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:PSARC-ext@sun.com>; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 02:10:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0L580001N98WAN00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Thu, 08 Jul 2010 01:10:08 -0600 (MDT) Received: from gmp-eb-inf-2.sun.com ([192.18.6.24]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0L5800GMC98VWE20@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Thu, 08 Jul 2010 01:10:08 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-emea-10.sun.com (gmp-eb-lb-1-fe1.eu.sun.com [192.18.6.7] (may be forged)) by gmp-eb-inf-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id o687A7fn029628 for ; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 07:10:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-emea-10.sun.com by fe-emea-10.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.04 64bit (built Jul 2 2009)) id <0L580060092EF900@fe-emea-10.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Thu, 08 Jul 2010 08:09:50 +0100 (BST) Received: from [85.160.113.206] ([unknown] [85.160.113.206]) by fe-emea-10.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.04 64bit (built Jul 2 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0L58004TH98B68D0@fe-emea-10.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Thu, 08 Jul 2010 08:09:49 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:09:46 +0200 From: Milan Jurik Subject: Re: PSARC 2010/245 EOF of amr In-reply-to: <1278565040.2510.182.camel@velocity> Sender: Milan.Jurik@sun.com To: PSARC-ext Message-id: <1278572986.1242.3.camel@localhost> Organization: Sun Microsystems Czech MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <1278522000.2510.44.camel@velocity> <1278565040.2510.182.camel@velocity> Status: RO Content-Length: 3462 Hi, Garrett D'Amore píše v st 07. 07. 2010 v 21:57 -0700: > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 01:20 +0200, ольга крыжановская wrote: > > The comment was in reply to your mail to Asa about closing this case. > > Sorry for the out of order mail. > > As we discussed during the meeting, Oracle declared the issue of amr a > business matter. The bigger concern I have about the impact to the > downstream OpenSolaris community (and the lack of a conduit back to > Oracle for feedback from the community *other* than through ARC review) > was deemed to be a larger issue and out of scope for this particular > case. > > I'm not sure how we fix the process; I'm pretty sure nobody at Oracle > really *wants* to fix the process. After all, it works perfectly well > for Oracle's needs. > Even if Oracle is not interested in maintaining and distributing amr driver, it is fully open sourced and community can extract it from ON gate and move to other gate (Emancipation project?). So other distros can distribute them easily. And yes, it is my personal oppinion and can be different from oppinion of Oracle. Best regards, Milan > -- Garrett > > > > > Olga > > > > 2010/7/8 ольга крыжановская : > > > What about your concerns for 3rd party vendors and the community? > > > > > > Olga > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > >> I'm a bit concerned that we may be premature in EOF'ing AMR. While > > >> *Sun* customers probably didn't use this driver on Sun hardware, the > > >> driver remains in the open source tree, and appears to have been sold > > >> by Dell fairly recently. > > >> > > >> If Oracle wants to elide this driver from Solaris 11 or Solaris Next or > > >> whatever, that doesn't concern me -- especially if Oracle is going to > > >> choose to only support a subset of systems that could run potentially > > >> run the OS. > > >> > > >> However, as an OpenSource product, I remain unconvinced that adequate > > >> information about the usage of this driver has been collected. Its > > >> *possible* that nobody ever used it, but that seems somewhat unlikely. > > >> > > >> As the source is open, and the driver conforms to the SCSA DDK, I would > > >> think that the cost of sustaining on this driver would be very small > > >> indeed. > > >> > > >> If we're going to EOF this driver now, then I think we wind up with a > > >> level 0 question about support for "semi-legacy" hardware in the OS. Is > > >> Oracle going to ditch support for all hardware that it hasn't sold? Or > > >> hardware that customers aren't reporting problems with? How recently > > >> sold on the market does hardware have to be to be considered viable for > > >> OpenSolaris? 1 year? 2 years? > > >> > > >> How is a popularity contest on the drivers determined? > > >> > > >> - Garrett > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> opensolaris-arc mailing list > > >> opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > , _ _ , > > > { \/`o;====- Olga Kryzhanovska -====;o`\/ } > > > .----'-/`-/ olga.kryzhanovska@gmail.com \-`\-'----. > > > `'-..-| / http://twitter.com/fleyta \ |-..-'` > > > /\/\ Solaris/BSD//C/C++ programmer /\/\ > > > `--` `--` > > > > > > > > > > > From alan.coopersmith@oracle.com Thu Jul 8 07:13:42 2010 Received: from sunmail6brm.central.sun.com (sunmail6brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.169]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o68EDgXA001602 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 07:13:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail6brm.central.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.4) with ESMTP id o68EDfn4002125 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:PSARC-ext@sun.com>; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 09:13:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0L580040NSUTF700@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Thu, 08 Jul 2010 07:13:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jurassic.Eng.Sun.COM ([10.5.240.81]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0L5800FXCSUTMC80@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Thu, 08 Jul 2010 07:13:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [129.145.155.53] (sunray-osol-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.53]) by jurassic.Eng.Sun.COM (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o68EDeNW491658; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 07:13:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 07:13:40 -0700 From: Alan Coopersmith Subject: Re: PSARC 2010/245 EOF of amr In-reply-to: <1278565040.2510.182.camel@velocity> To: "Garrett D'Amore" Cc: =?UTF-8?B?0L7Qu9GM0LPQsCDQutGA0YvQttCw0L3QvtCy0YHQutCw0Y8=?= , PSARC-ext Message-id: <4C35DD14.3060102@oracle.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.1 References: <1278522000.2510.44.camel@velocity> <1278565040.2510.182.camel@velocity> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090926) Status: RO Content-Length: 1102 Garrett D'Amore wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 01:20 +0200, ольга крыжановская wrote: >> The comment was in reply to your mail to Asa about closing this case. >> Sorry for the out of order mail. > > As we discussed during the meeting, Oracle declared the issue of amr a > business matter. The bigger concern I have about the impact to the > downstream OpenSolaris community (and the lack of a conduit back to > Oracle for feedback from the community *other* than through ARC review) > was deemed to be a larger issue and out of scope for this particular > case. And yet it seems not that different than cases you helped with EOF for when you were still an employee, and the reason you'd previously talked about creating a gate for the community and other distros to continue maintaining drivers that Sun/Oracle no longer wish to maintain, nor to burden those changing the core consolidations with ensuring they don't break. Whatever happened to that plan of yours? -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith@oracle.com Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System From garrett@damore.org Thu Jul 8 08:26:35 2010 Received: from sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail3mpk.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.52]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o68FQZsq004581 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 08:26:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.4) with ESMTP id o68FQZK3009485 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:PSARC-ext@sun.com>; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 08:26:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0L5800L0PW7YHH00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:26:22 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sca-ea-mail-4.sun.com ([192.18.43.22]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0L5800269W7XJGF0@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:26:21 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay42i.sun.com ([192.5.209.72]) by sca-ea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id o68F2AB8007607 for ; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:26:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mmp43es.mmp.us.syntegra.com ([160.41.221.12] [160.41.221.12]) by relay42i.sun.com with ESMTP id BT-MMP-11356 for PSARC-ext@sun.com; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:26:20 +0000 (Z) Received: from relay42i.sun.com (relay42i.sun.com [192.5.209.72]) by mmp43es.mmp.us.syntegra.com with ESMTP id BT-MMP-14374656 for PSARC-ext@sun.com; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:26:20 +0000 (Z) Received: from oproxy2-pub.bluehost.com ([67.222.39.60] [67.222.39.60]) by relay4i.sun.com id BT-MMP-303022 for PSARC-ext@sun.com; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:26:20 +0000 (Z) Received: (qmail 20100 invoked by uid 0); Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:26:19 +0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box374.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.174) by oproxy2.bluehost.com with SMTP; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:26:19 +0000 Received: from cpe-76-93-15-33.socal.res.rr.com ([76.93.15.33] helo=[192.168.251.110]) by box374.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (SSLv3:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OWszT-0003nA-EY; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:26:19 -0600 Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 08:26:55 -0700 From: "Garrett D'Amore" Subject: Re: PSARC 2010/245 EOF of amr In-reply-to: <4C35DD14.3060102@oracle.com> To: Alan Coopersmith Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=BE=D0=BB=D1=8C=D0=B3=D0=B0_?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=BA=D1=80=D1=8B=D0=B6=D0=B0=D0=BD=D0=BE=D0=B2=D1=81=D0=BA?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B0=D1=8F?= , PSARC-ext Message-id: <1278602815.2510.217.camel@velocity> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=damore.org; h=Received:Subject:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date:Message-ID:Mime-Version:X-Mailer:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=JVB41jiUgRn/rURRe3JNaJ9Y+GxiHZrSxvEhQOuLnhUoR+JOnG05P9QUHG8qu5RO1LNatRonWR975XCpBQxhV0lmYwec2YuKkRKp8GQpiD+NMKuzQB+MGCJKrNp3BYvp; X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Identified-User: {2225:box374.bluehost.com:damoreor:damore.org} {sentby:smtp auth 76.93.15.33 authed with garrett+damore.org} X-Antispam: No, score=-0.7/5.0, scanned in 0.317sec at (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smf-spamd v1.3.1 - http://smfs.sf.net/ References: <1278522000.2510.44.camel@velocity> <1278565040.2510.182.camel@velocity> <4C35DD14.3060102@oracle.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sac.sfbay.sun.com id o68FQZsq004581 Status: RO Content-Length: 1493 On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 07:13 -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 01:20 +0200, ольга крыжановская wrote: > >> The comment was in reply to your mail to Asa about closing this case. > >> Sorry for the out of order mail. > > > > As we discussed during the meeting, Oracle declared the issue of amr a > > business matter. The bigger concern I have about the impact to the > > downstream OpenSolaris community (and the lack of a conduit back to > > Oracle for feedback from the community *other* than through ARC review) > > was deemed to be a larger issue and out of scope for this particular > > case. > > And yet it seems not that different than cases you helped with EOF for > when you were still an employee, Fundamentally, this is true. Although I think amr slides a bit closer to "hardware likely to still be in use" than some of the other EOF cases I drove. (Seriously, EPIC/100 NICs were last sold a decade ago, and were never popular. The amr hardware was sold as recently as a couple of years ago, by one of the biggest system vendors. There is a difference, IMO.) > and the reason you'd previously talked > about creating a gate for the community and other distros to continue > maintaining drivers that Sun/Oracle no longer wish to maintain, nor to > burden those changing the core consolidations with ensuring they don't > break. > > Whatever happened to that plan of yours? Um, stay tuned. :-) - Garrett