Re: kernel/1852

[Jeff Bachtel <sebastion@irelandmail.com>]

> no shits.
> and raidframe is commented out for a reason, do you think
> it was commented for no reason, just as a typo ?

Thats why it was a change-request, not a bug, Michael. I was
_requesting_ that consideration be put forward to enabling raidframe
in the generic kernel. Unfortunately, because you _closed_ the bug
report, with a completely off-ass resolution comment, noone will
likely think twice about it.

> 
> > If they're somewhere else and active, great, please point out where.
> 
> sure it may be, in your own config, other users need no to suffer.

What exactly the hell suffering is there involved with enabling the
device on a kernel? Mind you, I've found plenty of suffering actually
using raidframe, but nothing I've seen leads me to believe that a
couple of pseudo devices hurts anything greatly. And it greatly eases
the use of the generic kernel as a drop-in, usable server kernel
(which, AFAIK, has been a goal for some time [eliminating the need for
custom kernels]).

I'm cc:ing to tech@. Maybe someone can come up with a witty argument
like "raidframe makes the kernel too big for too many users", in which
case fine, it shouldn't be enabled. Or maybe "it makes the kernel as
unstable as a mofo" in which case fine, the code should probably be
ripped out of the tree if its in that state (which it isn't). But a
_real_ reason, before a request is dismissed out of hand, would be
nice.

jeff

> 
> cu