Re: GFS2 and DLM

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 08:33:39 +0200
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> 
> > Isnt this whole episode highly hypocritic to begin with?
> 
> Might be, but that's not relevant to GFS2's suitability.

it is relevant to a certain degree, because it creates a (IMO) false 
impression of merging showstoppers. After months of being in -mm, and 
after addressing all issues that were raised (and there was a fair 
amount of review activity December last year iirc), one week prior the 
close of the merge window a 'huge' list of issues are raised. (after 
belovingly calling the GFS2 code a "huge mess", to create a positive and 
productive tone for the review discussion i guess.)

So far in my reading there are only 2 serious ones in that list:

 - tty_* use in cluster-aware quota.c. Firstly, ocfs2 doesnt do quota -
   which is fair enough, but this also means that there was no in-tree 
   filesystem to base stuff off. Secondly, the tty_* use was inherited 
   from fs/quota.c - hardly something i'd consider a fatal sin. Anyway, 
   despite the mitigating factors it is an arguably lame thing and 
   it should be (and will be) fixed.

 - GFP_NOFAIL: most other journalling filesystems seem to be doing this
   or worse. Fixing it is _hard_. Suddenly this becomes a showstopper? 
   Huh?

(the "use the generic facilities" arguments are only valid if the 
generic facilities can be used as-is, and if they are just optimal as 
the one implemented by the filesystem.)

	Ingo
-
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/