From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Subject: Re: LSF Papers online? Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:49:32 +0200 Message-ID: <200904132349.32994.bzolnier@gmail.com> References: <49E335BA.3020103@panasas.com> <20090413121137.5c5d259c@bike.lwn.net> <200904132340.21525.bzolnier@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-bw0-f169.google.com ([209.85.218.169]:60677 "EHLO mail-bw0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751522AbZDMVpq (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:45:46 -0400 Received: by bwz17 with SMTP id 17so2175952bwz.37 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:45:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <200904132340.21525.bzolnier@gmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Jonathan Corbet Cc: Boaz Harrosh , James Bottomley , Zach Brown , Chris Mason , Tejun Heo , linux-scsi On Monday 13 April 2009 23:40:21 Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > On Monday 13 April 2009 20:11:37 Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:42:09 +0300 > > Boaz Harrosh wrote: > > > > > Rrrr lwn.net costs money! I don't see why it has to be there? > > > > Perhaps because *I* was there? :) > > > > As others have noted, the coverage will become free on Thursday. For > > those who can't wait, here's a couple of free links: > > > > day 1: http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/327601/58395fefaebea3b5/ > > day 2: http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/327740/a4f5f4ae07981cec/ > > > > James has also sent me his notes from the storage track; I've formatted > > them up and put them at: > > > > http://lwn.net/Articles/328347/ > > > > It's not LWN original content (James wouldn't let us pay him for it), > > so it's free for all readers from the beginning. > > Thanks guys! > > I've started reading it and immediately noticed a thing which made by day. :-) > > Sorry if it will sound off-topic or undiplomatic but it is the best occasion > to straighten up some facts: > > "Discussion then moved on to the current status of getting libata out of > SCSI: we have had several successes, notably timer handling and pieces of > error handling have moved up to block. Unfortunately, the current progress > has reached the point where it's being impeded by the legacy IDE subsystem > > Heh, you can also blame the lack of world peace on the legacy IDE subsystem. > > I wonder who came up with this ridiculous excuse (I'm sure it wasn't James!). > > The thing is that during last _five_ years almost nothing was done in this > direction. Despite the fact that it was #1 condition under which the whole s/five/six/ sorry, I keep forgetting that it is 2009 already