From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758254Ab0IGUPe (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Sep 2010 16:15:34 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:61428 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758232Ab0IGUPa (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Sep 2010 16:15:30 -0400 Message-ID: <4C869D2E.5060505@vlnb.net> Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:14:38 +0400 From: Vladislav Bolkhovitin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100527 Thunderbird/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dmitry Torokhov CC: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" , James Bottomley , Dirk Meister , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Chetan Loke , Chetan Loke , scst-devel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Christie , FUJITA Tomonori Subject: Re: [Scst-devel] Fwd: Re: linuxcon 2010... References: <1283204792.32007.448.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <4C7FFD1A.8090509@vlnb.net> <1283459158.5598.143.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <20100905201802.GC18411@core.coreip.homeip.net> <1283723447.556.133.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <20100905234134.GA17212@core.coreip.homeip.net> <1283731194.556.147.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <1283769578.15944.1293.camel@mulgrave.site> <4C85617E.2080603@vlnb.net> <1283810135.556.238.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <20100907004424.GB21430@core.coreip.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <20100907004424.GB21430@core.coreip.homeip.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:KXTkF0nic36fa5mOR0IYFflj/cwe0vGLT80c2JAxJvj CSYUpVVxw1yJ3+lhtPP6iNdFkurLSh5lKnlzXyuXoqShCXNUxo XTlXgLFGqPRjB5mpbVzXyZ5gQeBzxKvYucFHRqp2PtgiLHbbhk SMaZO39shB4wNNBj5REc4ncacG+vLLAAquuVQBFplpHJBa75Dy GXB4LP9kkBxdIx2b5y0fA== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dmitry Torokhov, on 09/07/2010 04:44 AM wrote: >> So at this point, I will once again to refrain from any non technical >> interaction with yourself. If you have geninue concerns about any of >> the TCM/LIO v4 code, then I suggest that you and your devels make them >> known from within threads containing [PATCH] and [RFC] tags, because I >> will not be bothering with anything that does not contain comments on >> creating new or improving existing design and code. >> > > I think this is somewhat backwards... > > Vlad appears to be asserting that SCST is more feature-complete that LIO > at this point. It also seems that LIO is somewhat younger than SCST. So > at this point it might be interesting to see: > > 1. What are the shortcomings of SCST design compared to LIO and why LIO > developers chose to come with their own solution instead of > collaborating with SCST folks? > > 2. What features are missing from SCST that are currently available in > LIO? > > Once this is sorted out and [most] everyone agrees that LIO is indeed > technically superior (even if maybe not as mature yet) solution, then it > would make sense to request SCST developers to go to file/line depth of > the review. Those are exactly the questions trying to hear answers on which I'm hitting the wall in past time. Thanks! Vlad