Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754384Ab0HWUVK (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:21:10 -0400 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:53939 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752220Ab0HWUVG (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:21:06 -0400 Subject: Re: [Scst-devel] Fwd: Re: linuxcon 2010... From: James Bottomley To: Bart Van Assche Cc: Gennadiy Nerubayev , Vladislav Bolkhovitin , scst-devel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:21:01 -0500 Message-ID: <1282594861.11194.60.camel@mulgrave.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.1.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2603 Lines: 58 On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 22:11 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote: > 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 have avoided this decision for several years in the vain hope that some accommodation could be found. However, since I foresee a mergeable patch in my inbox in the very near future, it's shortly becoming unavoidable. James > 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/