[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <208edf35-ecdc-2d73-4c48-0424943a78c0@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 17:56:07 +0100
From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, 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>,
"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 5:33 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 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.
>
Which is my plan, too.
I'll be working with the Veeam folks to present a joint patchset
(including the DM bits) for the next round.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect
hare@...e.de +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists