From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hch@lst.de (Christoph Hellwig) Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 16:12:11 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 0/3] Provide more fine grained control over multipathing In-Reply-To: <20180525135813.GB9591@redhat.com> References: <20180525125322.15398-1-jthumshirn@suse.de> <20180525130535.GA24239@lst.de> <20180525135813.GB9591@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20180525141211.GA25971@lst.de> On Fri, May 25, 2018@09:58:13AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > We all basically knew this would be your position. But at this year's > LSF we pretty quickly reached consensus that we do in fact need this. > Except for yourself, Sagi and afaik Martin George: all on the cc were in > attendance and agreed. And I very mich disagree, and you'd bette come up with a good reason to overide me as the author and maintainer of this code. > And since then we've exchanged mails to refine and test Johannes' > implementation. Since when was acting behind the scenes a good argument for anything? > Hopefully this clarifies things, thanks. It doesn't. The whole point we have native multipath in nvme is because dm-multipath is the wrong architecture (and has been, long predating you, nothing personal). And I don't want to be stuck additional decades with this in nvme. We allowed a global opt-in to ease the three people in the world with existing setups to keep using that, but I also said I won't go any step further. And I stand to that. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S936194AbeEYOGd (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 May 2018 10:06:33 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:37151 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935737AbeEYOGc (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 May 2018 10:06:32 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 16:12:11 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Mike Snitzer Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Johannes Thumshirn , Keith Busch , Sagi Grimberg , Hannes Reinecke , Laurence Oberman , Ewan Milne , James Smart , Linux Kernel Mailinglist , Linux NVMe Mailinglist , "Martin K . Petersen" , Martin George , John Meneghini Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Provide more fine grained control over multipathing Message-ID: <20180525141211.GA25971@lst.de> References: <20180525125322.15398-1-jthumshirn@suse.de> <20180525130535.GA24239@lst.de> <20180525135813.GB9591@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180525135813.GB9591@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 09:58:13AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > We all basically knew this would be your position. But at this year's > LSF we pretty quickly reached consensus that we do in fact need this. > Except for yourself, Sagi and afaik Martin George: all on the cc were in > attendance and agreed. And I very mich disagree, and you'd bette come up with a good reason to overide me as the author and maintainer of this code. > And since then we've exchanged mails to refine and test Johannes' > implementation. Since when was acting behind the scenes a good argument for anything? > Hopefully this clarifies things, thanks. It doesn't. The whole point we have native multipath in nvme is because dm-multipath is the wrong architecture (and has been, long predating you, nothing personal). And I don't want to be stuck additional decades with this in nvme. We allowed a global opt-in to ease the three people in the world with existing setups to keep using that, but I also said I won't go any step further. And I stand to that.