Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:13:44 +0800 | From | David Teigland <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] dlm: use configfs |
| |
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 02:23:48PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote: > On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 02:07:50PM +0800, David Teigland wrote:
> > + * /config/dlm/<cluster>/spaces/<space>/nodes/<node>/nodeid > > + * /config/dlm/<cluster>/spaces/<space>/nodes/<node>/weight > > + * /config/dlm/<cluster>/comms/<comm>/nodeid > > + * /config/dlm/<cluster>/comms/<comm>/local > > + * /config/dlm/<cluster>/comms/<comm>/addr > > So what happened to factoring out the common parts of ocfs2_nodemanager? > I was quite a big fan of that approach :) Or am I just misunderstanding > what these patches do?
The nodemanager RFC I sent a month ago http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=112166723919347&w=2
amounts to half of dlm/config.c (everything under comms/ above) moved into a separate kernel module. That would be trivial to do, and is still an option to bat around.
I question whether factoring such a small chunk into a separate module is really worth it, though? Making all of config.c (all of /config/dlm/ above) into a separate module wouldn't seem quite so strange. It would require just a few lines of code to turn it into a stand alone module.
Dave
- 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/
| |