From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Reinecke Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] dm-cache (block level disk cache target): UPDATE Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:34:26 +0200 Message-ID: <4E9E8B92.5050204@suse.de> References: Reply-To: device-mapper development Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: device-mapper development List-Id: dm-devel.ids On 10/18/2011 10:48 PM, Stephen Bromfield wrote: > A new patch for the 2.6.39 kernel. > > Signed-off-by: Ming Zhao > Hmm? This is implementation #1 out of three. And, incidentally, the least maintained; 2.3.39 isn't exactly the = most recent kernel. (Otherwise one does wonder why Ming Zhao hasn't posted it himself). (Incidentally, can we have a rule that the person sending a patch = _has_ to be listed as 'Signed-off-by', ie has to be the one actually = working on it?) flashcache and that one from Tao Ma & Coly Li are the other two = versions of the same beast, all sharing the same codebase. Not to mention my (slightly different) implementation which I'll be = presenting at LinuxCon Europe next week. So maybe, just maybe, we should get out heads together and discuss = the merits and shortcomings of the various implementations. And decide on a single implementation, not 4. Or a framework = allowing for all these variances. But so it's hard to see why this implementation should go upstream = and none of the others. And I somehow doubt Alasdair would agree on having several = implementations on the same topic. Cheers, Hannes -- = Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=FCrnberg GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imend=F6rffer, HRB 16746 (AG N=FCrnberg)