Dmitry Torokhov, on 09/07/2010 04:44 AM wrote:
So at this point, I will once again to refrain from any non technical
interaction with yourself. If you have geninue concerns about any of
the TCM/LIO v4 code, then I suggest that you and your devels make them
known from within threads containing [PATCH] and [RFC] tags, because I
will not be bothering with anything that does not contain comments on
creating new or improving existing design and code.
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.
Those are exactly the questions trying to hear answers on which I'm
hitting the wall in past time.
Thanks!
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
