>>>>> "Hannes" == Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx> writes: Hannes> - Backends: Should we concentrate on the new 'XCOPY LITE' Hannes> proposal or should we try to implement the original XCOPY Hannes> command, too? I know of very few vendors interested in implementing the original XCOPY stuff. Only the standards people seem to be excited about it. It's way too complex, IMHO. XCOPY lite is a much better fit for how we actually do I/O. So that's what I'm tracking closely. As we talked about in Prague, I've dabbled a bit with the design from an I/O stack perspective and it fits nicely. My gut feeling is that XCOPYv2 might get ratified but companies will actually end up implementing XCOPY lite. Regardless of whether the lite proposal gets into the spec or not. T10 appears to be designing a lot of stuff right now that's an extremely poor fit for how modern operating systems work. I think we may see a bigger divergence between what's in the spec and what companies choose to implement. -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
