On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Matt W. Benjamin<[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > A priority for openafs is to merge the rxosd changeset. One obstacle to > merging is the use of two 'unused' members in existing structures without > prior coordination. We've been asked to move discussion of the topic into > this forum, which we hereby do. >
Hi Matt, Perhaps I'm missing some context since I couldn't make it to the workshop this year, but I sense that we're really getting ahead of ourselves -- rxosd (at least in the 1.4.8 tarball I received at the Google hackathon) is neither cache coherent, nor consistent. Until we, as a community, have a chance to re-architect rxosd to follow afs3 semantics, and to properly support transactional semantics with regard to vnodes and the volume package, I think it's premature to talk about how afs3 should be modified to deal with these namespace collisions. Regards, -Tom [email protected] _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
