On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 08:08:37AM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote: > 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). > The question was directed to LIO folks as they appear to disagree with this statement. -- Dmitry -- 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
