From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: NeilBrown Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 11:26:50 +1000 Subject: [lustre-devel] [PATCH 00/24] lustre - more cleanups including module reduction. In-Reply-To: <913847E3-EB34-4B9D-9314-0BCF59837AFC@cray.com> References: <152904663333.10587.10934053155404014785.stgit@noble> <3FD4D051-9C95-449D-8A23-D42B271E55B8@dilger.ca> <87tvprah32.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <87d0wd6i4m.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <913847E3-EB34-4B9D-9314-0BCF59837AFC@cray.com> Message-ID: <87zhzf66qt.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org On Wed, Jun 27 2018, Cory Spitz wrote: > Hello, Neil. > > Cray does indeed have another user of LNet. While it is now GPL, I can't say if it will ever be in mainline. However, even without it there is a case for LNet to live on its own as Andreas pointed out recently with http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-devel-lustre.org/2018-June/007098.html. > > But, if you want to group everything together now, we can hopefully tease it apart again in the future. If so, I think that it would be misleading to call a module lnet if it contained distributed locking functionality (ldlm). How about lustre-common, lustre-core, or some such? > Do you have a link to this open-source thing that uses LNet? Does it have a name? Is it the Zest thing that Andreas' email linked to? Or maybe it's Cray-DVS?? A link to a git tree would be very helpful. (I'm not committed to any name before I understand what the encapsulated functionality would be) Thanks, NeilBrown -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 832 bytes Desc: not available URL: