| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <0a73688d-f466-4a96-89af-0dca4cb5ea8a@googlegroups.com> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 12:21:55 -0800 (PST) From: promo@...rwindsoftware.com To: fa.linux.kernel@...glegroups.com Cc: Andreas Steinmetz <ast@...dv.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org Subject: Re: LIO - the broken iSCSI target implementation Please don't start another "SCST Vs. LIO" holy war here. We all know why LIO belongs to Linux kernel and SCST does not. On Friday, January 18, 2013 3:54:18 AM UTC+2, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote: > Andreas Steinmetz, on 01/16/2013 08:19 PM wrote: > > > Thus, lio (http://www.linux-iscsi.org/) seemed to be the politically and > > > technically favoured solution. > > > > [...] > > > > > The fun part of it was that I finally ended up using SCST - which was > > > refrained from kernel inclusion for technical reasons beyond my > > > knowledge. > > > > No, it was purely political. There has never been any technical argument why LIO > > is better. And can not be. > > > > Thanks, > > Vlad > > > > -- > > 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/ -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists