From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@vlnb.net>
Subject: Re: [Scst-devel] Fwd: Re: linuxcon 2010...
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:14:38 +0400
Message-ID: <4C869D2E.5060505@vlnb.net>
References: <1283204792.32007.448.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <4C7FFD1A.8090509@vlnb.net> <1283459158.5598.143.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <20100905201802.GC18411@core.coreip.homeip.net> <1283723447.556.133.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <20100905234134.GA17212@core.coreip.homeip.net> <1283731194.556.147.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <1283769578.15944.1293.camel@mulgrave.site> <4C85617E.2080603@vlnb.net> <1283810135.556.238.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <20100907004424.GB21430@core.coreip.homeip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:61428 "EHLO
	moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1758232Ab0IGUPa (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 7 Sep 2010 16:15:30 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20100907004424.GB21430@core.coreip.homeip.net>
Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org>, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@suse.de>, Dirk Meister <dmeister@uni-paderborn.de>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Chetan Loke <chetanloke@gmail.com>, Chetan Loke <generationgnu@yahoo.com>, scst-devel <scst-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>, FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>

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