* Re: [Fwd: "Enhanced" MD code avaible for review] [not found] <405899E8.8070806@pobox.com> @ 2004-03-17 18:37 ` Christoph Hellwig 2004-03-17 18:54 ` Justin T. Gibbs 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2004-03-17 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: justin_gibbs; +Cc: linux-raid On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 01:33:12PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > A patch to fs/partitions/check.c is also required for this > release to function correctly: > > > http://people.freebsd.org/~gibbs/linux/SRC/md_announce_whole_device.diff Vetoed. Kernel-level autodetection code is deprecated already, don't even try to add functionality for it. As for the actual code please post diffs instead of tarballs. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: "Enhanced" MD code avaible for review] 2004-03-17 18:37 ` [Fwd: "Enhanced" MD code avaible for review] Christoph Hellwig @ 2004-03-17 18:54 ` Justin T. Gibbs 2004-03-17 19:01 ` Christoph Hellwig 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Justin T. Gibbs @ 2004-03-17 18:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: linux-raid > On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 01:33:12PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> A patch to fs/partitions/check.c is also required for this >> release to function correctly: Hmm. I don't think Jeff wrote that. >> http://people.freebsd.org/~gibbs/linux/SRC/md_announce_whole_device.diff > > Vetoed. Kernel-level autodetection code is deprecated already, don't > even try to add functionality for it. So do you speak for the entire community in expressing that auto-detection will never make sense in the kernel? Are you completely unwilling to entertain even a minor discussion on the topic for those of us that don't understand the concerns the community has in supporting it? > As for the actual code please post diffs instead of tarballs. If you look at the posted code, you'll see that diffs make little sense at this point. But I will generate diffs in addition to the tarball with the next release later this week. -- Justin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: "Enhanced" MD code avaible for review] 2004-03-17 18:54 ` Justin T. Gibbs @ 2004-03-17 19:01 ` Christoph Hellwig 2004-03-17 19:05 ` Justin T. Gibbs 2004-03-17 19:23 ` Hendrik Visage 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2004-03-17 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Justin T. Gibbs; +Cc: linux-raid On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 11:54:05AM -0700, Justin T. Gibbs wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 01:33:12PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> A patch to fs/partitions/check.c is also required for this > >> release to function correctly: > > Hmm. I don't think Jeff wrote that. That's why it's doubly-quoted, right? > >> http://people.freebsd.org/~gibbs/linux/SRC/md_announce_whole_device.diff > > > > Vetoed. Kernel-level autodetection code is deprecated already, don't > > even try to add functionality for it. > > So do you speak for the entire community in expressing that auto-detection > will never make sense in the kernel? Are you completely unwilling to > entertain even a minor discussion on the topic for those of us that don't > understand the concerns the community has in supporting it? I speak about the concencus the 'community' has reached in the past. If you invested the tiniest amount of googling you'd have seen messages from Neil where he sais he'd rather get rid of autodetection ioctls in favour of mdadm doing the work, and patches extending autodetection beeing rejected. Which pretty much fits into the general do it in userspace if you can rule. > > As for the actual code please post diffs instead of tarballs. > > If you look at the posted code, you'll see that diffs make little > sense at this point. But I will generate diffs in addition > to the tarball with the next release later this week. Diffs alwasy make sense if you touch existing code. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: "Enhanced" MD code avaible for review] 2004-03-17 19:01 ` Christoph Hellwig @ 2004-03-17 19:05 ` Justin T. Gibbs 2004-03-17 19:09 ` Christoph Hellwig 2004-03-17 19:23 ` Hendrik Visage 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Justin T. Gibbs @ 2004-03-17 19:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: linux-raid > On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 11:54:05AM -0700, Justin T. Gibbs wrote: >> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 01:33:12PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> >> A patch to fs/partitions/check.c is also required for this >> >> release to function correctly: >> >> Hmm. I don't think Jeff wrote that. > > That's why it's doubly-quoted, right? Hmm. I didn't realize that Jeff was ever part of this thread. I authored the text that you quoted and was just surprised to see Jeff's name near it. Never mind. >> So do you speak for the entire community in expressing that auto-detection >> will never make sense in the kernel? Are you completely unwilling to >> entertain even a minor discussion on the topic for those of us that don't >> understand the concerns the community has in supporting it? > > I speak about the concencus the 'community' has reached in the past. > If you invested the tiniest amount of googling you'd have seen messages > from Neil where he sais he'd rather get rid of autodetection ioctls > in favour of mdadm doing the work, and patches extending autodetection > beeing rejected. Which pretty much fits into the general do it in > userspace if you can rule. I'm aware of Neil's past comments on the subject, but I was not aware of a more full discussion on what this means in terms of lost functionality for Linux. I would like to have that discussion. I'm more than willing to adjust our strategy once that discussion takes place and a consensus is reached. -- Justin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: "Enhanced" MD code avaible for review] 2004-03-17 19:05 ` Justin T. Gibbs @ 2004-03-17 19:09 ` Christoph Hellwig 2004-03-17 19:28 ` Jeff Garzik 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2004-03-17 19:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Justin T. Gibbs; +Cc: Christoph Hellwig, linux-raid On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 12:05:51PM -0700, Justin T. Gibbs wrote: > Hmm. I didn't realize that Jeff was ever part of this thread. > I authored the text that you quoted and was just surprised to see > Jeff's name near it. Never mind. he forwarded the mail to me, and I didn't remove his name from the mutt inserted when replying, not intentional, but with the double quotes it shouldn't be that confusing either.. > I'm aware of Neil's past comments on the subject, but I was not aware > of a more full discussion on what this means in terms of lost functionality > for Linux. I would like to have that discussion. I'm more than willing > to adjust our strategy once that discussion takes place and a consensus > is reached. We're not far enough to actually removing functionlly yet. For that early userspace needs to get a little more mature and more widely used. We're not going to add more functionaly like that. though. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: "Enhanced" MD code avaible for review] 2004-03-17 19:09 ` Christoph Hellwig @ 2004-03-17 19:28 ` Jeff Garzik 2004-03-17 19:34 ` Christoph Hellwig 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Jeff Garzik @ 2004-03-17 19:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: Justin T. Gibbs, linux-raid, Linux Kernel (added linux-kernel to CC, where IMO the discussion on wider issues belongs) Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 12:05:51PM -0700, Justin T. Gibbs wrote: >>I'm aware of Neil's past comments on the subject, but I was not aware >>of a more full discussion on what this means in terms of lost functionality >>for Linux. I would like to have that discussion. I'm more than willing >>to adjust our strategy once that discussion takes place and a consensus >>is reached. > > > We're not far enough to actually removing functionlly yet. For that > early userspace needs to get a little more mature and more widely used. > > We're not going to add more functionaly like that. though. If early userspace isn't ready, it sounds like a choice between "nothing" and "it works". We want a clean, tasteful solution, sure. But I think we can work within the confines of the existing 2.6 API, and not postpone this stuff under early userspace is ready. <rant> Overall... the storage industry finally got off their ass and created a vendor-neutral RAID format, and they're actually using it. Linux users don't deserve to be left out in the cold until 2.7.x klibc stuff is in, since they will be buying such RAID hardware right now. I got into the Linux kernel game years ago in a large part because of precisely this -- getting Linux users going on hardware that would otherwise be Windows-only, without my help. (or would otherwise be a grotty and buggy vendor driver, without my help:)) </rant> Jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: "Enhanced" MD code avaible for review] 2004-03-17 19:28 ` Jeff Garzik @ 2004-03-17 19:34 ` Christoph Hellwig 2004-03-17 19:41 ` Jeff Garzik 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2004-03-17 19:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: Justin T. Gibbs, linux-raid, Linux Kernel On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 02:28:59PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > If early userspace isn't ready, it sounds like a choice between > "nothing" and "it works". > > We want a clean, tasteful solution, sure. But I think we can work > within the confines of the existing 2.6 API, and not postpone this stuff > under early userspace is ready. Umm, early userspace works nicely, you don't need the klibc and initramfs buzzwords for that, good 'ol initrd still works and people actually use it, e.g. for dm. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: "Enhanced" MD code avaible for review] 2004-03-17 19:34 ` Christoph Hellwig @ 2004-03-17 19:41 ` Jeff Garzik 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Jeff Garzik @ 2004-03-17 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: Justin T. Gibbs, linux-raid, Linux Kernel Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 02:28:59PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >>If early userspace isn't ready, it sounds like a choice between >>"nothing" and "it works". >> >>We want a clean, tasteful solution, sure. But I think we can work >>within the confines of the existing 2.6 API, and not postpone this stuff >>under early userspace is ready. > > > Umm, early userspace works nicely, you don't need the klibc and > initramfs buzzwords for that, good 'ol initrd still works and people > actually use it, e.g. for dm. Agreed. initrd works in 2.4, too... Jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: "Enhanced" MD code avaible for review] 2004-03-17 19:01 ` Christoph Hellwig 2004-03-17 19:05 ` Justin T. Gibbs @ 2004-03-17 19:23 ` Hendrik Visage 1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Hendrik Visage @ 2004-03-17 19:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: Justin T. Gibbs, linux-raid On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 08:01:17PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > >> http://people.freebsd.org/~gibbs/linux/SRC/md_announce_whole_device.diff > > > > > > Vetoed. Kernel-level autodetection code is deprecated already, don't > > > even try to add functionality for it. > > > > So do you speak for the entire community in expressing that auto-detection > > will never make sense in the kernel? Are you completely unwilling to > > entertain even a minor discussion on the topic for those of us that don't > > understand the concerns the community has in supporting it? I personally see the use for it, but alas. This have also been an for EVMS and the reason they`ve changed so radically change between 1.2 and 2.0 > I speak about the concencus the 'community' has reached in the past. > If you invested the tiniest amount of googling you'd have seen messages > from Neil where he sais he'd rather get rid of autodetection ioctls > in favour of mdadm doing the work, and patches extending autodetection > beeing rejected. Which pretty much fits into the general do it in > userspace if you can rule. Yes. Personally I have different views on it, but that's the direction that especially the hardcore kernel developers on the linux kernel mailing list views the world and auto discovery etc. Hendrik ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-03-17 19:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <405899E8.8070806@pobox.com>
2004-03-17 18:37 ` [Fwd: "Enhanced" MD code avaible for review] Christoph Hellwig
2004-03-17 18:54 ` Justin T. Gibbs
2004-03-17 19:01 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-03-17 19:05 ` Justin T. Gibbs
2004-03-17 19:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-03-17 19:28 ` Jeff Garzik
2004-03-17 19:34 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-03-17 19:41 ` Jeff Garzik
2004-03-17 19:23 ` Hendrik Visage
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).