[Drbd-dev] [GIT PULL] DRBD for 2.6.32
fujita.tomonori at lab.ntt.co.jp
Sat Sep 19 07:14:30 CEST 2009
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:08:03 +0200
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe at oracle.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18 2009, Neil Brown wrote:
> > On Thursday September 17, hch at infradead.org wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:02:45AM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > So I think Christoph's NAK is rooted in the fact that we have a
> > > > proliferation of in-kernel RAID implementations and he's trying to
> > > > reunify them all again.
> > > >
> > > > As part of the review, reusing the kernel RAID (and actually logging)
> > > > logic did come up and you added it to your todo list. Perhaps expanding
> > > > on the status of that would help, since what's being looked for is that
> > > > you're not adding more work to the RAID reunification effort and that
> > > > you do have a plan and preferably a time frame for coming into sync with
> > > > it.
> > >
> > > Yes. RDBD has spend tons of time out of tree, and if they want to put
> > > it in now I think requiring them to do their homework is a good idea.
> > What homework?
> > If there was a sensible unifying framework in the kernel that they
> > could plug in to, then requiring them do to that might make sense. But
> > there isn't. You/I/We haven't created a solution (i.e. there is no
> > equivalent of the VFS for virtual block devices) and saying that
> > because we haven't they cannot merge DRBD hardly seems fair.
> > Indeed, merging DRBD must be seen as a *good* thing as we then have
> > more examples of differing requirements against which a proposed
> > solution can be measured and tested.
> > I thought the current attitude was "merge then fix". That is what the
> > drivers/staging tree seems to be all about. Maybe you could argue
> > that DRBD should go in to 'staging' first (though I don't think that
> > is appropriate or require myself), but keeping it out just seems
> > wrong.
> FWIW, I agree with Neil here. If drbd is merge clean, lets go ahead and
> merge it. While it would be nice to offload the raid unification onto
> drbd, it's not exactly fair.
I guess that Christoph is worry about adding another user interface
for kinda device management; once we merge this, we can't fix it (for
the raid unification).
BTW, DM already has something like drbd? I thought that there is a
talk about that new target at LinuxCon.
More information about the drbd-dev