Re: "Enhanced" MD code avaible for review

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>]

Neil Brown wrote:
> Choice is good.  Competition is good.  I would not try to interfere
> with you creating a new "emd" driver that didn't interfere with "md". 
> What Linus would think of it I really don't know.  It is certainly not
> impossible that he would accept it.

Agreed.

Independent DM efforts have already started supporting MD raid0/1 
metadata from what I understand, though these efforts don't seem to post 
to linux-kernel or linux-raid much at all.  :/


> However I'm not sure that having three separate device-array systems
> (dm, md, emd) is actually a good idea.  It would probably be really
> good to unite md and dm somehow, but no-one seems really keen on
> actually doing the work.

I would be disappointed if all the work that has gone into the MD driver 
is simply obsoleted by new DM targets.  Particularly RAID 1/5/6.

You pretty much echoed my sentiments exactly...  ideally md and dm can 
be bound much more tightly to each other.  For example, convert md's 
raid[0156].c into device mapper targets...  but indeed, nobody has 
stepped up to do that so far.

	Jeff