Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756851AbYLMPZQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:25:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751119AbYLMPY6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:24:58 -0500 Received: from accolon.hansenpartnership.com ([76.243.235.52]:43520 "EHLO accolon.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750975AbYLMPY5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:24:57 -0500 Subject: Re: [Announce]: Target_Core_Mod/ConfigFS and LIO-Target v3.0 work From: James Bottomley To: Bart Van Assche Cc: linux-iscsi-target-dev@googlegroups.com, LKML , linux-scsi , "H. Peter Anvin" , Christoph Hellwig , FUJITA Tomonori , Mike Christie , Hannes Reinecke , Jens Axboe , Vladislav Bolkhovitin In-Reply-To: References: <1228965271.4153.510.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <1229025513.4153.542.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <1229074809.4153.666.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <54939.1229149205@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1229162907.4153.857.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <1229167118.4153.930.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:24:56 -0600 Message-Id: <1229181896.3258.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 (2.22.3.1-1.fc9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3078 Lines: 61 On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 12:56 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger > wrote: > > Of course I fix bugs when people report them. > > Things have changed then since the beginning of this year. As anyone > can see in the threads I referred to, you have done your best to deny > that the crashes and system hangs were caused by LIO, although I had > posted exact instructions on how to reproduce the bugs. Regarding > kernel integration and subsystem maintainership: one of the important > tasks of a maintainer is to verify whether reported bugs are > reproducible, and if so, to resolve them. I'm happy none of the > current kernel maintainers has the habitude of denying bug reports > that are 100% reproducible and which contain exact instructions about > how to reproduce the bug. OK, All of you on this thread, why don't you take time out to step back and think about the effects this descent into trench warfare is having on your observers. 1. You're both saying the other side isn't production ready ... it's not a stretch for the rest of us to take this at face value ... about both of you. 2. This ideological opposition to features the other side implements tells me that if it came to a choice, by going with either one of you I'd get an incomplete feature set. 3. Making obvious partisans of your user base also tells me that if I had to make a choice, whatever it was I'd piss off a large number of people who'd be very vocal about it. Since we have a working target solution in the kernel already (STGT), why on earth would I be stupid enough to want to even consider either of you, coming as you do with the above mentioned baggage? So stop fighting ... you're not going to backstab your way to inclusion. The only identified failing of STGT (and it's theoretical, not demonstrated, although I can agree the theory looks correct) is that the user space packet processing may cause performance problems on high speed networks. We know from practical tests that these networks have to be above 1Gbit because the results were identical for STGT and SCST on a 1G network, so it's infiniband or 10Gbit ethernet. So, what it comes down to is that if we had a kernel side protocol accelerator for STGT, the project would no longer suffer from this theoretical failing. *Both* of you have such a thing embedded in your respective submissions (all 74k LOC of them) so can't you just enhance STGT with whichever one is better ... actually, if you'd both bury the hatchet and work on the enhancement together taking the best of each project, we'd have something that worked much better and a unified user base and neither side would be able to claim sole credit ... just a thought. James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/