Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 Oct 2002 16:15:45 +0100 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [Evms-devel] Re: Linux v2.5.42 |
| |
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 12:18:52AM +0800, Michael Clark wrote: > one you decides. At the end of the day it is just another 'driver' > and I don't think it's fair to place a higher benchmark of quality > on EVMS than all the other drivers in the kernel
If you followed lkml you'll see that I even explain authors of very small drivers how to fit the kernel standards. The situation with those is a little different as they are not a framework and don't add new APIs. Thus it's only a correctness and style issues.
EVMS on the other hand is not only a lot of code but also a framework, i.e. it folows certain design principles. And I fundamentally disagree with some of those.
> Some of us have large arrays and SANs where the absence a volume > manager is a big thing.
Not having EVMS ~= not having a volume manager. I don't want to have to manage my storage farms without a volume manager either, but that doesn't have to mean that I like the EVMS design.
- 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/
| |