On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 05:48:26PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> For OCFS2 that would mean that an ocfs2_nodemanager would still exist,
> but as a much smaller module sitting on top of 'nodemanager'.
Yep, factoring out the common bits.
> So no port attribute. The OCFS2 network code normally takes
Hi David,
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 02:15:53PM +0800, David Teigland wrote:
> Some of the comments about the dlm concerned how it's configured (from
> user space.) In particular, there was interest in seeing the dlm and
> ocfs2 use common methods for their configuration.
>
> The first area I'm
On Monday 18 July 2005 16:15, David Teigland wrote:
> I've taken a stab at generalizing ocfs2_nodemanager so the dlm could use
> it (removing ocfs-specific stuff). It still needs some work, but I'd
> like to know if this appeals to the ocfs group and to others who were
> interested in seeing some
On Monday 18 July 2005 16:15, David Teigland wrote:
I've taken a stab at generalizing ocfs2_nodemanager so the dlm could use
it (removing ocfs-specific stuff). It still needs some work, but I'd
like to know if this appeals to the ocfs group and to others who were
interested in seeing some
Hi David,
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 02:15:53PM +0800, David Teigland wrote:
Some of the comments about the dlm concerned how it's configured (from
user space.) In particular, there was interest in seeing the dlm and
ocfs2 use common methods for their configuration.
The first area I'm looking
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 05:48:26PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
For OCFS2 that would mean that an ocfs2_nodemanager would still exist,
but as a much smaller module sitting on top of 'nodemanager'.
Yep, factoring out the common bits.
So no port attribute. The OCFS2 network code normally takes
6 matches
Mail list logo
