Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/7] dlm: overview | Date | Tue, 26 Apr 2005 01:30:16 -0400 |
| |
On Monday 25 April 2005 17:09, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > Now that we have two (or three) options with actual users, now is the > right time to finally come up with sane and useful abstractions. This is > great.
Great thought, but it won't work unless you actually read them all, which I hope is what you're proposing.
> With APIs, I think we do need a DLM-switch in the kernel, but also the > DLMs should really seem much the same to user-space apps. From what I've > seen, dlmfs is OCFS2 wasn't doing too badly there. The icing would of > course be if even the configuration was roughly similar, and if OCFS2's > configfs might prove valuable to other users too.
I'm a little skeptical about the chance of fitting an 11-parameter function call into a generic kernel plug-in framework. Are those the exact same 11 parameters that God intended?
While it would be great to share a single dlm between gfs and ocfs2 - maybe Lustre too - my crystal ball says that that laudable goal is unlikely to be achieved in the near future, whereas there isn't much choice but to sort out a common membership framework right now.
As far as I can see, only cluster membership wants or needs a common framework. And I'm not sure that any of that even needs to be in-kernel.
Regards,
Daniel
> The cluster summit in June will certainly be a very ... exciting place. > Let's hope this also stirs up KS a bit ;-) > > Oh, and just to anticipate that discussion, anyone who suggests to adopt > the SAF AIS locking API into the kernel should be preemptively struck; > that naming etc is just beyond words. > > > Sincerely, > Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@suse.de> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |