[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1402672861.2224.11.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:21:01 -0700
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
target-devel <target-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Quinn Tran <quinn.tran@...gic.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] target updates for v3.16-rc1
On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 15:39 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 02:05:16PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > The first is with virtio-scsi between what has been merged in scsi.git
> > for "virtio_scsi: use cmd_size", and the "virtio-scsi: Enable DIF/DIX
> > modes in SCSI host LLD" below. (Adding Paolo + hch CC')
>
> Just curious, why did we decide to take the virtio-scsi patches
> through the target tree? Seems like taking them through the scsi
> tree would have been a lot simpler.
We've been ineffectively trying to split them between target and
initiator, since it's effectively both. Now that we seem to have a
workable process, why don't we just take everything (target scsi-queue
and vhost) through the SCSI tree, that way we don't get into these
problems in future.
James
--
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