[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Device-mapper submission 6/7
Joe Thornber <> 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.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  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