From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Long Subject: Re: "Enhanced" MD code avaible for review Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:59:29 -0700 Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <405F61C1.9090907@adaptec.com> References: <459805408.1079547261@aslan.scsiguy.com> <4058A481.3020505@pobox.com> <4058C089.9060603@adaptec.com> <200403172245.31842.bzolnier@elka.pw.edu.pl> <4058EBEC.8070309@adaptec.com> <1079788027.5225.4.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> <405E287E.3080706@adaptec.com> <1079946343.5296.5.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1079946343.5296.5.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> To: arjanv@redhat.com Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Jeff Garzik , "Justin T. Gibbs" , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, "Gibbs, Justin" , Linux Kernel List-Id: linux-raid.ids Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 00:42, Scott Long wrote: > > >>Well, code speaks louder than words, as this group loves to say. I >>eagerly await your code. Barring that, I eagerly await a technical >>argument, rather than an emotional "you're wrong because I'm right" >>argument. > > > I think that all the arguments for using DM are techinical arguments not > emotional ones. oh well.. you're free to write your code I'm free to not > use it in my kernels ;) Ok, the technical arguments I've heard in favor of the DM approach is that it reduces kernel bloat. That fair, and I certainly agree with not putting the kitchen sink into the kernel. Our position on EMD is that it's a special case because you want to reduce the number of failure modes, and that it doesn't contribute in a significant way to the kernel size. Your response to that our arguments don't matter since your mind is already made up. That's the barrier I'm trying to break through and have a techincal discussion on. Scott