linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] DRBD for 2.6.32

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20090919141334N.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date:	Sat, 19 Sep 2009 14:14:30 +0900
From:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
To:	jens.axboe@...cle.com
Cc:	neilb@...e.de, hch@...radead.org, James.Bottomley@...e.de,
	lars.ellenberg@...bit.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	bart.vanassche@...il.com, davej@...hat.com, gregkh@...e.de,
	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, kyle@...fetthome.net, lmb@...e.de,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, nab@...ux-iscsi.org,
	knikanth@...e.de, philipp.reisner@...bit.com, sam@...nborg.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] DRBD for 2.6.32

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:08:03 +0200
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 18 2009, Neil Brown wrote:
> > On Thursday September 17, hch@...radead.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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/