On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:44 AM, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [ ... ] > > 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. You seem to have missed the start of this thread. The design of SCST is significantly more advanced than that of LIO, and it has already been explained in this thread why (http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg45856.html). 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
