[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADGDV=WN2TFR6dO7ZdiQ2ijPjs+7HSsvk0ZCHsHj6ZG5t-oEdA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 17:44:03 +0200
From: Philipp Reisner <philipp.reisner@...bit.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@...bit.com>,
drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: state of drbd in mainline
Jens, my intention is to keep it in-tree, and at some point update it.
Regarding your questions:
[...]
> - Why aren't the drbd maintainers responding to posted patches? They seem
> to simply be ignored, and I'm left to pickup the trivial ones that look
> fine to me. In-kernel drbd appears largely unmaintained, and has been for
> years.
The team here has grown, we are busy. Since you started to pick up the
trivial patches yourself, I thought it is not necessary that I collect them and
send a pull request in merge-window time.
> - Even if out-of-band communication is used for in-kernel users of drbd,
> that doesn't result in any patches or fixes that should go upstream?
This one:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-block/patch/20210426163032.3454129-1-christoph.boehmwalder@linbit.com/
(relevant to users that have DRBD on top of md raid)
> - If there's zero activity for in-kernel drbd, all users are using the
> out-of-tree version?
There are users of the in-tree version, some with huge fleets.
Some do not need the newer out-of-tree DRBD, and the in-tree version is a
lot easier to compile. You need coccinelle for the out-of-tree version,
and that can already be a hindering barrier for some.
> As far as I can tell, drbd upstream is stone cold dead, and has been for
> years. Why shouldn't it just get removed?
Because there are users.
> Is it just bait to get people to use an out-of-tree version?
No.
> --
> Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists