lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [Scst-devel] Fwd: Re: linuxcon 2010...
    On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 08:08:37AM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
    > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:44 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
    > <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > [ ... ]
    > >
    > > 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.
    >
    > You seem to have missed the start of this thread. The design of SCST
    > is significantly more advanced than that of LIO, and it has already
    > been explained in this thread why
    > (http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg45856.html).
    >

    The question was directed to LIO folks as they appear to disagree with
    this statement.

    --
    Dmitry


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-09-07 08:29    [W:4.031 / U:122.496 seconds]
    ©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site