Re: [Scst-devel] Fwd: Re: linuxcon 2010...

[Chetan Loke]

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-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/