From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Fasheh Subject: Re: GFS, what's remaining Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 17:16:28 -0700 Message-ID: <20050903001628.GH21228@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> References: <20050901104620.GA22482@redhat.com> <20050901035939.435768f3.akpm@osdl.org> <1125586158.15768.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050901132104.2d643ccd.akpm@osdl.org> Reply-To: Mark Fasheh , linux clustering Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux clustering , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: Andi Kleen Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-cluster-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-cluster-bounces@redhat.com List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 11:17:08PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > The only thing that should be probably resolved is a common API > for at least the clustered lock manager. Having multiple > incompatible user space APIs for that would be sad. As far as userspace dlm apis go, dlmfs already abstracts away a large part of the dlm interaction, so writing a module against another dlm looks like it wouldn't be too bad (startup of a lockspace is probably the most difficult part there). --Mark -- Mark Fasheh Senior Software Developer, Oracle mark.fasheh@oracle.com