Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1a/7] dlm: core locking | Date | Fri, 29 Apr 2005 04:05:28 -0400 |
| |
On Thursday 28 April 2005 08:21, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > On 2005-04-27T22:41:04, Daniel Phillips <phillips@istop.com> wrote: > > > Just a couple comments here, more will come as time permits. I know you > > > consider cluster file systems to be "obscure" apps... > > > > Oh the contrary, cluster filesystems are the main focus of and reason for > > the current submission. > > He was actually quoting David. And indeed it is very important that the > DLM interfaces be generally useful, not just for a specific cluster > filesystem; if that was the goal, it would be an internal component only > and no need to expose it.
True, sort of. Remember, the _only_ argument for (g)dlm being in-kernel is to tighten up the interface for filesystems. If (g)dlm could be trimmed down by supporting _only_ in-kernel filesystems, with a different, userspace lock manager for user space apps, well, that is a strategy that has to be considered.
Taking part of (g)dlm out of kernel is also something that needs to be looked it. It is a little on the biggish side.
Don't forget, (g)dlm is just a cluster service, and at present, a service that has exactly one user in the whole world: gfs. We'd like to attract more, but not at the cost of kernel bloat.
Regards,
Daniel - 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/
| |