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]

Message-ID: <20100907062652.GA1680@core.coreip.homeip.net>
Date:	Mon, 6 Sep 2010 23:26:52 -0700
From:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
	Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
	Dirk Meister <dmeister@...-paderborn.de>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, Chetan Loke <chetanloke@...il.com>,
	Chetan Loke <generationgnu@...oo.com>,
	scst-devel <scst-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>,
	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [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@...il.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
--
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/