linux-kernel - Re: Combined storage tree

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20100913025807.GD411@dastard>
Date:	Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:58:07 +1000
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
Cc:	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-ide <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Combined storage tree

On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 08:55:16AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-09-11 at 18:20 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 01:27:27PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > One of the requests from LSF10 in August was the production of a
> > > combined storage tree.  This is now ready at
> > > 
> > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/storage-tree
> > > 
> > > It's actually a nightly built merge tree consisting of
> > > 
> > > scsi-misc; scsi-rc-fixes
> > > libata#upstream-fixes, libata#upstream
> > > block#for-linus, block#for-next
> > > and the dm quilt (which is empty at the moment).
> > > 
> > > I haven't yet added vfs or any of the fs trees, but if necessary, I can.
> > > 
> > > Note, because it's built nightly, like linux-next, it's hard (but not
> > > impossible) to use it as a basis for git trees (it is much easier to use
> > > it as a basis for quilts).
> > 
> > Hmmm. I was kind of hoping for an upstream maintainer tree, kind of
> > like the netdev tree.  I really don't see a tree like this getting
> > wide use - if I enjoyed the pain of rebasing against throw-away
> > merge trees every day, then I'd already be using linux-next....
> 
> Well, to be honest, that's what people wanted when the issue was raised
> at LSF10.  However, unlike net, storage has never had a single
> maintainer, so it's a bit more political than just doing that by fiat,

Bah. Technical arguments win here, not politics. Besides, what
possible political concern can anyone have about using a different
upstream tree for development? A storage maintainer tree would not
replace anyone's little fiefdom; what we need is an integration point
long before stuff gets to Linus....

> plus not all of the current maintainers with storage trees were there.

If that's the barrier to discussion, then where else but a dedicated
storage workshop are you going to get a more representative sample
of storage developers in the same room?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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/