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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:11:22 +0200
From:	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
Cc:	Gennadiy Nerubayev <parakie@...il.com>,
	Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>,
	scst-devel <scst-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Scst-devel] Fwd: Re: linuxcon 2010...

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 7:58 PM, James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@...e.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 19:44 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:59 PM, James Bottomley
>> <James.Bottomley@...e.de> wrote:
>> >
>> > My basic conclusion was that there's no incredible discriminator between
>> > LIO and STGT (although there are reams written on which performs better
>> > in which circumsances, is useful for clustering, supports ALUA, etc.
>> > each with partisans for the features).  If the two communities can't
>> > work together (as seems to be the case) and I have to choose one, I'll
>> > go by what helps me which, as I've said before, are:
>> >
>> >     1. That it would be a drop in replacement for STGT (our current
>> >        in-kernel target mode driver), since he only wanted a single
>> >        SCSI target infrastructure.
>> >
>> >     2. That it used a modern sysfs based control and configuration
>> >        plane.
>> >
>> >     3. That the code was reviewed as clean enough for inclusion.

Let us return to the three acceptance criteria. At this time none of
the existing kernel-based target frameworks support ibmvstgt and hence
none of them satisfy criterion [1]. Yet these criteria have been used
to decide that one kernel-based target framework will be accepted and
that the other will not be accepted. I'm afraid that I missed
something ?

Also, you write that you, as a kernel maintainer, might become in a
position that you have to choose a target framework. I would
appreciate it if you would take the time to reread the document
Documentation/ManagementStyle. This document was written by Linus
Torvalds and explains that a kernel maintainer should try to avoid
having to take such decisions. The whole first chapter of that
document is devoted to this subject.

I regret that you got involved personally in this discussion. It would
have been a lot easier for everyone if you would have been able to
keep a neutral position.

Bart.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/