[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180525141211.GA25971@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 16:12:11 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
Laurence Oberman <loberman@...hat.com>,
Ewan Milne <emilne@...hat.com>,
James Smart <james.smart@...adcom.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailinglist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux NVMe Mailinglist <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Martin George <marting@...app.com>,
John Meneghini <John.Meneghini@...app.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Provide more fine grained control over multipathing
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 09:58:13AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> We all basically knew this would be your position. But at this year's
> LSF we pretty quickly reached consensus that we do in fact need this.
> Except for yourself, Sagi and afaik Martin George: all on the cc were in
> attendance and agreed.
And I very mich disagree, and you'd bette come up with a good reason
to overide me as the author and maintainer of this code.
> And since then we've exchanged mails to refine and test Johannes'
> implementation.
Since when was acting behind the scenes a good argument for anything?
> Hopefully this clarifies things, thanks.
It doesn't.
The whole point we have native multipath in nvme is because dm-multipath
is the wrong architecture (and has been, long predating you, nothing
personal). And I don't want to be stuck additional decades with this
in nvme. We allowed a global opt-in to ease the three people in the
world with existing setups to keep using that, but I also said I
won't go any step further. And I stand to that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists