[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1ee7652e-b77f-6fa4-634c-ff6639037321@kernel.dk>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 09:33:53 -0700
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
Sergei Shtepa <sergei.shtepa@...am.com>, hch@....de
Cc: "johannes.thumshirn@....com" <johannes.thumshirn@....com>,
"koct9i@...il.com" <koct9i@...il.com>,
"ming.lei@...hat.com" <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
"hare@...e.de" <hare@...e.de>,
"josef@...icpanda.com" <josef@...icpanda.com>,
"steve@....org" <steve@....org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pavel Tide <Pavel.TIde@...am.com>, dm-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] block: blk_interposer - Block Layer Interposer
On 12/11/20 9:30 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> While I still think there needs to be a proper _upstream_ consumer of
> blk_interposer as a condition of it going in.. I'll let others make the
> call.
That's an unequivocal rule.
> As such, I'll defer to Jens, Christoph and others on whether your
> minimalist blk_interposer hook is acceptable in the near-term.
I don't think so, we don't do short term bandaids just to plan on
ripping that out when the real functionality is there. IMHO, the dm
approach is the way to go - it provides exactly the functionality that
is needed in an appropriate way, instead of hacking some "interposer"
into the core block layer.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists