On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 22:11 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 7:58 PM, James Bottomley > <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxx> 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 > >> <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxx> 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-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
