Re: [PATCH 0/7] dlm: overview

[Daniel Phillips <phillips@istop.com>]

On Monday 25 April 2005 17:09, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> Now that we have two (or three) options with actual users, now is the
> right time to finally come up with sane and useful abstractions. This is
> great.

Great thought, but it won't work unless you actually read them all, which I 
hope is what you're proposing.

> With APIs, I think we do need a DLM-switch in the kernel, but also the
> DLMs should really seem much the same to user-space apps. From what I've
> seen, dlmfs is OCFS2 wasn't doing too badly there. The icing would of
> course be if even the configuration was roughly similar, and if OCFS2's
> configfs might prove valuable to other users too.

I'm a little skeptical about the chance of fitting an 11-parameter function 
call into a generic kernel plug-in framework.  Are those the exact same 11 
parameters that God intended?

While it would be great to share a single dlm between gfs and ocfs2 - maybe 
Lustre too - my crystal ball says that that laudable goal is unlikely to be 
achieved in the near future, whereas there isn't much choice but to sort out 
a common membership framework right now.

As far as I can see, only cluster membership wants or needs a common 
framework.  And I'm not sure that any of that even needs to be in-kernel.

Regards,

Daniel



> The cluster summit in June will certainly be a very ... exciting place.
> Let's hope this also stirs up KS a bit ;-)
>
> Oh, and just to anticipate that discussion, anyone who suggests to adopt
> the SAF AIS locking API into the kernel should be preemptively struck;
> that naming etc is just beyond words.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>     Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@suse.de>
-
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/