From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: "Enhanced" MD code avaible for review Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:21:41 -0500 Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <40624235.30108@pobox.com> References: <760890000.1079727553@aslan.btc.adaptec.com> <16479.50592.944904.708098@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au> <2128160000.1080023015@aslan.btc.adaptec.com> <16480.61927.863086.637055@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <16480.61927.863086.637055@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au> To: Neil Brown Cc: "Justin T. Gibbs" , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Neil Brown wrote: > Choice is good. Competition is good. I would not try to interfere > with you creating a new "emd" driver that didn't interfere with "md". > What Linus would think of it I really don't know. It is certainly not > impossible that he would accept it. Agreed. Independent DM efforts have already started supporting MD raid0/1 metadata from what I understand, though these efforts don't seem to post to linux-kernel or linux-raid much at all. :/ > However I'm not sure that having three separate device-array systems > (dm, md, emd) is actually a good idea. It would probably be really > good to unite md and dm somehow, but no-one seems really keen on > actually doing the work. I would be disappointed if all the work that has gone into the MD driver is simply obsoleted by new DM targets. Particularly RAID 1/5/6. You pretty much echoed my sentiments exactly... ideally md and dm can be bound much more tightly to each other. For example, convert md's raid[0156].c into device mapper targets... but indeed, nobody has stepped up to do that so far. Jeff