On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 09:54 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Last year, during the 2015 LSF/MM summit, it has been decided that the
> LIO/SCST merger project should proceed by sending the functionality
> upstream that is present in SCST but not yet in LIO. This will help to
> reduce the workload of target driver maintainers that maintain a version
> of their target driver for both LIO and SCST (QLogic FC and FCoE target
> drivers, Emulex FC and FCoE target drivers, RDMA iSER target driver,
> RDMA SRP target driver, ...). My proposal is to organize a session
> during which the following is discussed:
> * Which patches are already upstream in the context of the LIO/SCST
> merger project.
> * About which patches there is agreement but that are not yet upstream.
> * To discuss how to proceed from here and what to address first.
No, just no. If you've not been able to articulate the specifics of
what you're talking about to the list by now, it's never going to
happen.
You'll recall last year how things unfolded at LSF. You started
comparing data structure TMR member names of no consequence to a larger
LSF audience, and quickly tried to pivot into a discussion about adding
hooks to LIO fabric drivers for your own out-of-tree nastiness.
I really fail to see how that helps LIO or upstream. To repeat. I'll
not allow SCST's out-of-tree legacy requirements to limit LIO's future
in upstream, and if you or your employer is still trying to get
enterprise distros to listen to that nonsense behind the scenes, then
please stop wasting everybody's time.
Bart, I really want to believe you and your employer have good
intentions for LIO. However, being one of it's largest detractors in
the past means that you have to really put your best foot forward on
your interaction with the LIO community.
However, your inability to ask questions before acting, refusing to
answer to all feedback on reviews for changes of substance, and not
following the expected patch review progress without repeatably leading
yourself and others down the wrong path really makes me start to
question your intentions, or at least your abilities as a kernel
contributor.
Also, you've not managed to merge any of the outstanding ib_srpt fixes
from the last year, which brings us to a grad total of 6 small patches
since the original merge of ib_srpt in Oct 2011.
# git log --author=Bart --oneline -- drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/
19f5729 IB/srpt: Fix the RDMA completion handlers
ba92999 target: Minimize SCSI header #include directives
2fe6e72 ib_srpt: Remove set-but-not-used variables
649ee05 target: Move task tag into struct se_cmd + support 64-bit tags
afc1660 target: Remove first argument of target_{get,put}_sess_cmd()
ab477c1 srp-target: Retry when QP creation fails with ENOMEM
That's really a terrible record.
So until you're able to demonstrate publicly to me and the LIO community
that you do have good intentions, and not trying to rehash the same
tired old nonsense and willful ignorance, please stop throwing out these
generic topics as a branding exercise.
There are much more interesting and important topics at LSF to discuss.
--
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
