lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Device-mapper submission 6/7
From
Date
Joe Thornber <joe@fib011235813.fsnet.co.uk> writes:

> Is there anyone out there who is going to argue against using an fs
> interface when I submit it ? Speak now or forever hold your peace !
>
> If dm now misses the feature freeze deadline due to this extra work,
> is it going to be possible to still place it in 2.5 at a later date ?
> (dm with an ioctl interface is better than no dm at all).

How would the fs based interface work ?

plan9 style echo 'rename foo bla' > /dmfs/command would seem ugly to me
(just look at the horrible parser code for that in mtrr.c)

doing it fully as fs objects (mv /dmfs/volume1 /dmfs/volume2 for rename)
could likely get complicated and it's doubtful that VFS semantics completely
map to DM volumes.

Unless you have a clear and simple way to handle these issues I would
suggest to stay with simple ioctls. They look clean enough.

-Andi


-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:30    [W:0.065 / U:5.548 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site