From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F175C04EBC for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:37:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AB4E206BB for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:37:28 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9AB4E206BB Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726630AbeKUAGj (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Nov 2018 19:06:39 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:10986 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725843AbeKUAGi (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Nov 2018 19:06:38 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B0A213A90; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:37:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.18.25.149]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89ABD60157; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:37:20 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 08:37:19 -0500 From: Mike Snitzer To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Hannes Reinecke , linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, Keith Busch , Sagi Grimberg , axboe@kernel.dk, Martin Wilck , lijie , xose.vazquez@gmail.com, chengjike.cheng@huawei.com, shenhong09@huawei.com, dm-devel@redhat.com, wangzhoumengjian@huawei.com, christophe.varoqui@opensvc.com, bmarzins@redhat.com, sschremm@netapp.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: nvme: allow ANA support to be independent of native multipathing Message-ID: <20181120133719.GB18991@redhat.com> References: <20181115174605.GA19782@redhat.com> <20181116091458.GA17267@lst.de> <37098edd-4dea-b58f-bca6-3be9af8ec4ee@suse.de> <20181116094947.GA19296@lst.de> <20181116101752.GA21531@lst.de> <20181116192802.GA30057@redhat.com> <20181119093938.GA11757@lst.de> <20181119145650.GB13470@redhat.com> <20181120094201.GB7742@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181120094201.GB7742@lst.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.29]); Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:37:27 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 20 2018 at 4:42am -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 09:56:50AM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > SO: will you be taking my v2 patch for 4.21 or not? > > No. This isn't how a Linux maintainer engages in technical discussion. You _clearly_ just want to prevent further use of multipath-tools and DM-multipath. You will resort to rejecting a patch that improves the NVMe driver's standards compliance if it allows you hijack NVMe multipathing because you think you have the best way and nobody else should be allowed to use a well established competing _open_ _Linux_ solution. Simple as that. You haven't made a single technical argument against my v2 patch, yet you're rejecting it. Purely on the basis that having NVMe's ANA updates work independent on native NVMe multipathing happens to benefit an alternative (and that benefit is just to not have multipath-tools to be so crude with a pure userspace ANA state tracking). Jens, this entire situation has gotten well beyond acceptable and you or other NVMe co-maintainers need to step in. We need reasoned _technical_ discussion or this entire process falls apart. Mike From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: snitzer@redhat.com (Mike Snitzer) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 08:37:19 -0500 Subject: nvme: allow ANA support to be independent of native multipathing In-Reply-To: <20181120094201.GB7742@lst.de> References: <20181115174605.GA19782@redhat.com> <20181116091458.GA17267@lst.de> <37098edd-4dea-b58f-bca6-3be9af8ec4ee@suse.de> <20181116094947.GA19296@lst.de> <20181116101752.GA21531@lst.de> <20181116192802.GA30057@redhat.com> <20181119093938.GA11757@lst.de> <20181119145650.GB13470@redhat.com> <20181120094201.GB7742@lst.de> Message-ID: <20181120133719.GB18991@redhat.com> On Tue, Nov 20 2018 at 4:42am -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018@09:56:50AM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > SO: will you be taking my v2 patch for 4.21 or not? > > No. This isn't how a Linux maintainer engages in technical discussion. You _clearly_ just want to prevent further use of multipath-tools and DM-multipath. You will resort to rejecting a patch that improves the NVMe driver's standards compliance if it allows you hijack NVMe multipathing because you think you have the best way and nobody else should be allowed to use a well established competing _open_ _Linux_ solution. Simple as that. You haven't made a single technical argument against my v2 patch, yet you're rejecting it. Purely on the basis that having NVMe's ANA updates work independent on native NVMe multipathing happens to benefit an alternative (and that benefit is just to not have multipath-tools to be so crude with a pure userspace ANA state tracking). Jens, this entire situation has gotten well beyond acceptable and you or other NVMe co-maintainers need to step in. We need reasoned _technical_ discussion or this entire process falls apart. Mike