On Friday 02 September 2005 20:16, Mark Fasheh wrote:
As far as userspace dlm apis go, dlmfs already abstracts away a large part
of the dlm interaction...
Dumb question, why can't you use sysfs for this instead of rolling your own?
Side note: you seem to have deleted all the 2.6.12-rc4
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 02:42:36AM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Friday 02 September 2005 20:16, Mark Fasheh wrote:
As far as userspace dlm apis go, dlmfs already abstracts away a large part
of the dlm interaction...
Dumb question, why can't you use sysfs for this instead of rolling
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 11:17:08PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Again, that's not a technical reason. It's _a_ reason, sure. But what are
the technical reasons for merging gfs[2], ocfs2, both or neither?
clusterfilesystems are very common, there are
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 08:14:00AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 13:18 +0800, David Teigland wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:21:04PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Why GFS is better than OCFS2, or has functionality which OCFS2
On 9/3/05, Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that lots of people would like the functionality. I regret that
although it appears that v9fs could provide it,
I think you are wrong there. You don't appreciate all the complexity
FUSE _lacks_ by not being network transparent.
While FUSE doesn't handle it directly, doesn't it have to punt it to
its network file systems, how to the sshfs and what not handle this
sort of mapping?
Sshfs handles it by not handling it. In this case it is neither
possible, nor needed to be able to correctly map the id space.
Yes, it may
On 9/3/05, Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While FUSE doesn't handle it directly, doesn't it have to punt it to
its network file systems, how to the sshfs and what not handle this
sort of mapping?
Sshfs handles it by not handling it. In this case it is neither
possible, nor
Yes, it may confuse the user. It may even confuse the kernel for
sticky directories(*). But basically it just works, and is very
simple.
In principal, Plan 9 file servers handle permission checking
server-side, so we could likewise punt -- but it seemed a good idea to
have some
On Saturday 03 September 2005 06:35, David Teigland wrote:
Just a new version, not a big difference. The ondisk format changed a
little making it incompatible with the previous versions. We'd been
holding out on the format change for a long time and thought now would be
a sensible time to
On Saturday 03 September 2005 02:46, Wim Coekaerts wrote:
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 02:42:36AM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Friday 02 September 2005 20:16, Mark Fasheh wrote:
As far as userspace dlm apis go, dlmfs already abstracts away a large
part of the dlm interaction...
Dumb
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 06:21:26PM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
that fit the configfs-nee-sysfs model? If it does, the payoff will be about
500 lines saved.
I'm still awaiting your merge of ext3 and reiserfs, because you
can save probably 500 lines having a filesystem that can create
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 06:32:41PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
If there's duplicated code in there then we should seek to either make the
code multi-purpose or place the common or reusable parts into a library
somewhere.
Regarding sysfs and configfs, that's a whole 'nother
On Saturday 03 September 2005 23:06, Joel Becker wrote:
dlmfs is *tiny*. The VFS interface is less than his claimed 500
lines of savings.
It is 640 lines.
The few VFS callbacks do nothing but call DLM
functions. You'd have to replace this VFS glue with sysfs glue, and
probably save very
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:22:36AM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
It is 640 lines.
It's 450 without comments and blank lines. Please, don't tell
me that comments to help understanding are bloat.
I said configfs in the email to which you are replying.
To wit:
Daniel Phillips said:
On Sunday 04 September 2005 00:30, Joel Becker wrote:
You asked why dlmfs can't go into sysfs, and I responded.
And you got me! In the heat of the moment I overlooked the fact that you and
Greg haven't agreed to the merge yet ;-)
Clearly, I ought to have asked why dlmfs can't be done by
Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The model you came up with for dlmfs is beyond cute, it's downright clever.
Actually I think it's rather sick. Taking O_NONBLOCK and making it a
lock-manager trylock because they're kinda-sorta-similar-sounding? Spare
me. O_NONBLOCK means open this
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:46:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
It would be much better to do something which explicitly and directly
expresses what you're trying to do rather than this strange lets do this
because the names sound the same thing.
So, you'd like a new flag name? That
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:51:10AM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Clearly, I ought to have asked why dlmfs can't be done by configfs. It is
the
same paradigm: drive the kernel logic from user-initiated vfs methods. You
already have nearly all the right methods in nearly all the right
On Sunday 04 September 2005 01:00, Joel Becker wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:51:10AM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Clearly, I ought to have asked why dlmfs can't be done by configfs. It
is the same paradigm: drive the kernel logic from user-initiated vfs
methods. You already have
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 01:52:29AM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
You do have -release and -make_item/group.
-release is like kobject release. It's a free callback, not a
callback from close.
If I may hand you a more substantive argument: you don't support user-driven
creation of
20 matches
Mail list logo
