Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 11:23 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger <nab@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
See also:
* February 1, 2008, LIO kernel panic during configuration,
http://groups.google.com/group/linux-iscsi-target-dev/browse_thread/thread/74c8b37f24b84e59/d94c07626bd20521?lnk=gst&q=kernel+panic#d94c07626bd20521.
* February 8, 2008, kernel crash triggered by LIO,
http://groups.google.com/group/linux-iscsi-target-dev/browse_thread/thread/30835aede1028188/5708e16a23367fb4?lnk=gst&q=kernel+crash#5708e16a23367fb4.
* February 13, 2008, LIO target kernel code triggers memory
corruption, http://groups.google.com/group/linux-iscsi-target-dev/browse_thread/thread/ddc1bf7666372972/2150a09f9ed3d1cd?lnk=gst&q=ipoib#2150a09f9ed3d1cd.
* February 18, 2008, LIO target makes entire system hang,
http://groups.google.com/group/linux-iscsi-target-dev/browse_thread/thread/6a76f9efd9409fc5/55bd8840b6a5f757?lnk=gst&q=lio+target+hangs#55bd8840b6a5f757.
I have no idea why why you keep bringing up a minor BUG (completely
unrelated to Target_Core_Mod/ConfigFS and LIO-Target v3.0 btw) that was
fixed 10 months ago..? Perhaps if you spent half the time looking at
actual lio-core-2.6.git code that you do bringing up minor closed bugs
from months ago [ ... ]
I won't comment on the fact that you consider a kernel crash or a
system hang as a minor bug.
The problem is that you like to handwave on the technical issues, just
like you are doing here. :-) Of course I fix bugs when people report
them, but when people like yourself yell and scream and handwave, it
makes me not want to fix it as quickly if someone wrote a nice and
thoughful email and said 'thank you'.
Anyways, I am not going to debate the development process with you, and
as folks on the LIO-devel list can tell you, I am very quick to produce
patches when a issue is located.
I reported four bugs instead of one. Only two of these have been
reported to be fixed.
Considering you said earlier that you have not actually looked at any
recently LIO code, how could you know these bugs are fixed..? Back
here in the land of reality, these *TWO* bugs where fixed in back Feb.
One was related to iSCSI discovery, and one related to v2.6.24 kernel
breakage and struct scatterlist->page_link, so what..? Do you honestly
think handwaving about bugs from 10 months ago will get you anywhere
here..? If you are so certain these bugs still exist or have any effect
on my upstream work, then please, go ahead and prove it. No..? I did
not think so.
What does any of this have to do with lio-core-2.6.git,
Target_Core_Mod/ConfigFS and LIO-Target v3.0 btw..? Are you actually
going to write a thoughtful or relivent comment on the v3.0 design
and/or code, because that would be nice out of your for once. Otherwise
I am going to ignore you again, just the like conversation where you
said:
"Zero-copy means that data is copied as few times as possible".
when I was attempting to explain the finer pointers of
Target_Core_Mod/ConfigFS design to you and Vlad. Remember that one..?
http://groups.google.com/group/linux-iscsi-target-dev/browse_thread/thread/8cff61671cd2de6b/37ade00e607dd8c8
You know, that thread was finished when you refused to name which real
life tasks you are going to solve with your super advanced features.
I.e. answer, why are they needed at all?
Vlad
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
