On 1/9/23 4:20?PM, Viacheslav A.Dubeyko wrote: > > >> On Jan 9, 2023, at 3:00 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>>> My point here that we could summarize: >>>> (1) what features already implemented and supported, >>>> (2) what features are under implementation and what is progress, >>>> (3) what features need to be implemented yet. >>>> >>>> Have we implemented everything already? :) >>> >>> Standards are full of features that are not useful in a general purpose >>> system. So we likely never will implement everything. We never did for >>> SCSI and ATA and never will either. >> Indeed, and that's a very important point. Some people read specs and >> find things that aren't in the Linux driver (any spec, not a specific >> one), and think they need to be added. No. We only add them if they make >> sense, both in terms of use cases, but also as long as they can get >> implemented cleanly. Parts of basically any spec is garbage and don't >> necessarily fit within the given subsystem either. >> >> The above would make me worried about patches coming from anyone with >> that mindset. >> > > OK. We already have discussion about garbage in spec. :) > So, what would we like finally implement and what never makes sense to do? > Should we identify really important stuff for implementation? Well if you did have that discussion, then it seemed you got nothing from it. Because asking that kind of question is EXACTLY what I'm saying is the opposite of what should be done. If there's a demand for a feature, then it can be looked at and ultimately implemented if it makes sense. You're still talking about proactively finding features and implementing them "just in case they are needed", which is very much the opposite and wrong approach, and how any kind of software ends up being bloated, slow, and buggy/useless. -- Jens Axboe
