Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 23 Sep 2000 10:57:20 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5 |
| |
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Peter Samuelson wrote: > > But most if not all block drivers, and some char drivers for that > matter, could be considered part of "storage management". So the label > is too broad. "md", on the other hand, is well-established as > referring to Linux RAID, but if you add lvm the label is too narrow.
Why?
Yes, we have all thes _historical_ reasons why people think "md" refers to the particular RAID code in question. But so what? LVM is also very much an issue of handling multiple disks, and organizing them. "md" as shorthand for "multiple disks" works fine for LVM too.
I think most people who complain about the "md" directory naming do so just because they have this emotional attachement to "md" as the particular implementation that it implied a year ago, and they've gotten used to that association.
But I don't think there is anything wrong with grouping RAID and LVM under the title "md", and just leaving it as such.
If you look at pre6, the comments changed a bit to make it clearer that MD now includes both LVM and RAID as equal partners, and I don't see any problem with that setup. Does anybody have any real technical arguments against it, or are all arguments of the type "I'm used to 'md' meaning RAID, and I am not willing to reconsider"?
Sure, it could be called "sm" for "storage management" too. Or "dm" for "disk management". Or it could be under drivers/block/multi. Or it could validly be called any number of things. I just think that "md" was a valid name too, and I got the patch with that name, so..
Linus
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |