Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754655Ab0HWUL1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:11:27 -0400 Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:54020 "EHLO mail-vw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754619Ab0HWULX convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:11:23 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=ELzKhWwlxhk4FzLK2cJVsRwjca+RZQlw/ExKOAFSmzucNn/vCPUyh2QXiBxYarqvrg bDqKZOyI0vjl+zVXBoO30bcu0goNbPJgmzUozVDLimh7tLR0HzHnZ47RxkpMUs3gZb3x cc5HyqtnQXtLmafDRkq94tQjMCvPG/aSO4YTg= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1282586336.11194.30.camel@mulgrave.site> References: <4C69653E.6050808@vlnb.net> <1282077040.16098.47.camel@mulgrave.site> <4C6C1DC1.8090208@vlnb.net> <1282164188.10878.22.camel@mulgrave.site> <4C702030.2070306@vlnb.net> <1282423128.3015.35.camel@mulgrave.site> <1282582740.11194.17.camel@mulgrave.site> <1282586336.11194.30.camel@mulgrave.site> Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:11:22 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: zi-7lM3T5x3NQiNw1roe47TXWbI Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Scst-devel] Fwd: Re: linuxcon 2010... From: Bart Van Assche To: James Bottomley Cc: Gennadiy Nerubayev , Vladislav Bolkhovitin , scst-devel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2232 Lines: 47 On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 7:58 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 19:44 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:59 PM, James Bottomley >> wrote: >> > >> > My basic conclusion was that there's no incredible discriminator between >> > LIO and STGT (although there are reams written on which performs better >> > in which circumsances, is useful for clustering, supports ALUA, etc. >> > each with partisans for the features). ?If the two communities can't >> > work together (as seems to be the case) and I have to choose one, I'll >> > go by what helps me which, as I've said before, are: >> > >> > ? ? 1. That it would be a drop in replacement for STGT (our current >> > ? ? ? ?in-kernel target mode driver), since he only wanted a single >> > ? ? ? ?SCSI target infrastructure. >> > >> > ? ? 2. That it used a modern sysfs based control and configuration >> > ? ? ? ?plane. >> > >> > ? ? 3. That the code was reviewed as clean enough for inclusion. Let us return to the three acceptance criteria. At this time none of the existing kernel-based target frameworks support ibmvstgt and hence none of them satisfy criterion [1]. Yet these criteria have been used to decide that one kernel-based target framework will be accepted and that the other will not be accepted. I'm afraid that I missed something ? Also, you write that you, as a kernel maintainer, might become in a position that you have to choose a target framework. I would appreciate it if you would take the time to reread the document Documentation/ManagementStyle. This document was written by Linus Torvalds and explains that a kernel maintainer should try to avoid having to take such decisions. The whole first chapter of that document is devoted to this subject. I regret that you got involved personally in this discussion. It would have been a lot easier for everyone if you would have been able to keep a neutral position. Bart. -- 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/