On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think this is somewhat backwards... > > Vlad appears to be asserting that SCST is more feature-complete that LIO > at this point. It also seems that LIO is somewhat younger than SCST. So > at this point it might be interesting to see: > > 1. What are the shortcomings of SCST design compared to LIO and why LIO > developers chose to come with their own solution instead of > collaborating with SCST folks? > > 2. What features are missing from SCST that are currently available in > LIO? > > Once this is sorted out and [most] everyone agrees that LIO is indeed > technically superior (even if maybe not as mature yet) solution, then it > would make sense to request SCST developers to go to file/line depth of > the review. > I would also appreciate an overview or a block diagram of how things work in LIO. I hope that's not too much to ask for? That way we can compare/contrast how things work from 10,000 feet level. I for one don't want to look at a single patch and comment - i) Oh, change this variable here because it doesn't follow linux coding style. ii) You dropped a lock in queue-cmd? Good. qla's driver has been doing it for sometime, no? So you could have just looked at that LLDD. Sorry, not trying to criticize anything but would like to offer my 2 cents too. > -- > Dmitry Chetan Loke -- 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
