On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 18:06 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 05:53:22PM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:Why are you so aggressive ? I didn't insult you in any way.Regarding out-of-tree modules: this is just a preparatory step beforeAnd what crackpipe did you smoke to thing we'd put duplicated target
submitting SCST for inclusion in the mainstream kernel.
framework in?
Regarding inclusion of SCSI target code in the mainline, this subject
has already been discussed extensively in the past
(http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/23/134). The conclusion was clear: SCST
is faster than any other existing iSCSI target for Linux (IET, STGT,
LIO), stable, well maintained and the most standards compliant target.
Why do you want to reopen this discussion ?
That's an interesting rewrite of history. The evidence you presented
showed fairly identical results apart from on one contrived IB benchmark
that couldn't directly compare the two.
I'm also on record in the thread saying that was insufficient proof for
me to justify throwing STGT out and replacing it with SCST.