[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240819151227.4d7f9e99@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:12:27 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Alexander Aring <aahringo@...hat.com>
Cc: teigland@...hat.com, gfs2@...ts.linux.dev, song@...nel.org,
yukuai3@...wei.com, agruenba@...hat.com, mark@...heh.com,
jlbec@...lplan.org, joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rafael@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
ocfs2-devel@...ts.linux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
vvidic@...entin-vidic.from.hr, heming.zhao@...e.com, lucien.xin@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH dlm/next 11/12] dlm: add nldlm net-namespace aware UAPI
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 14:37:41 -0400 Alexander Aring wrote:
> Recent patches introduced support to separate DLM lockspaces on a per
> net-namespace basis. Currently the file based configfs mechanism is used
> to configure parts of DLM. Due the lack of namespace awareness (and it's
> probably complicated to add support for this) in configfs we introduce a
> socket based UAPI using "netlink". As the DLM subsystem offers now a
> config layer it can simultaneously being used with configfs, just that
> nldlm is net-namespace aware.
>
> Most of the current configfs functionality that is necessary to
> configure DLM is being adapted for now. The nldlm netlink interface
> offers also a multicast group for lockspace events NLDLM_MCGRP_EVENT.
> This event group can be used as alternative to the already existing udev
> event behaviour just it only contains DLM related subsystem events.
>
> Attributes e.g. nodeid, port, IP addresses are expected from the user
> space to fill those numbers as they appear on the wire. In case of DLM
> fields it is using little endian byte order.
>
> The dumps are being designed to scale in future with high numbers of
> members in a lockspace. E.g. dump members require an unique lockspace
> identifier (currently only the name) and nldlm is using a netlink dump
> behaviour to be prepared if all entries may not fit into one netlink
> message.
Did you consider using the YAML spec stuff to code gen the policies
and make user space easier?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists