On Tue, Nov 20 2018 at 4:42am -0500, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 09:56:50AM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > SO: will you be taking my v2 patch for 4.21 or not? > > No. This isn't how a Linux maintainer engages in technical discussion. You _clearly_ just want to prevent further use of multipath-tools and DM-multipath. You will resort to rejecting a patch that improves the NVMe driver's standards compliance if it allows you hijack NVMe multipathing because you think you have the best way and nobody else should be allowed to use a well established competing _open_ _Linux_ solution. Simple as that. You haven't made a single technical argument against my v2 patch, yet you're rejecting it. Purely on the basis that having NVMe's ANA updates work independent on native NVMe multipathing happens to benefit an alternative (and that benefit is just to not have multipath-tools to be so crude with a pure userspace ANA state tracking). Jens, this entire situation has gotten well beyond acceptable and you or other NVMe co-maintainers need to step in. We need reasoned _technical_ discussion or this entire process falls apart. Mike -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
