Re: Linux v2.5.42

Brian Jackson
2002-10-13T15:57:40Z

Christoph Hellwig writes:

> On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 11:16:24PM +0800, Michael Clark wrote:
>> On 10/13/02 21:49, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> > On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 08:41:20PM +0800, Michael Clark wrote:
>> >
>> >>Exactly. I think Christoph is comparing it to the original md
>> >>architecture thich was more of an evolutionary design on the existing
>> >>block layer
>> >
>> >
>> > No, I do not. MD is in _no_ ways a volume managment framwork but just
>> > a few drivers that share common code. That's somethig entirely different.
>>
>> So why then the requirement that internal remapping layers be
>> implemented as block devices?
>
> I don't care how a single remapping layers is implemented. I want
> the common Voulme managment API work on public nodes.
>
>> Neither is implementing an internal logical remapping layer as a
>> block device just so you can do an ioctl directly to it.
>
> Not without hacks.
>
>> I think the point is really explaining why they _should_ be accessed.
>> If there is some valid reason other than having something you
>> can do an ioctl on.
>
> Because that
>
> a) removes hacks like the EVMS pass-though
> b) allows userspace to easily access it through read/write
>
>>
>> > argumentation tell me why you haven't submitted a patch to Linus
>> > yet to disallow direct access to block devices that are in use
>> > by a filesystem.
>>
>> I think the issue here is an md block device in use by another md block
>> device. Possbily becuase md's design precludes this (a design artifact)
>> (ie. md tools need access to the intermediary devices - users don't).
>
> I'm not talksing about MD here. Why do you want to disallow people
> using a device just it has another layer above it. E.g. write a change
> to the ondisk structures (setting a flag, etcc..) is most logically
> expressed by simple, O_DIRECT write to the actual device.
>
>
>> Yes, but the block device encapsulation here removes the need for plugins
>> to be implemented as block devices ie. removing complexity elsewhere.
>> I must admit to not being an expert on the block layer - but wouldn't
>> your suggesed approach mean intermediary layers would each have a
>> request queue
>
> It _coukd_ have a request queue, yes.
>
>> and other unneeded stuff - if so, is this desirable?
>
> What unneeded stuff? block device state contains no state relevant
> to userspace access.
>
>> > This argument is NIL if the infrastructure is part of exactly that
>> > evolving block layer. You might have noticed that kernel code
>> > compatility to other releases is not really a criteria for the
>> > linux kernel development, btw..
>>
>> I agree, maybe this would be worth doing for 2.7/2.8.
>
> Yes.
>
>> In the meatime
>> do you think this would be feasible? - you are basically suggesting
>> a complete rewrite
>
> Exactly.
>
>> (or do you think you can do the rewrite to IBM's
>> satisfaction before the freeze ie. in the eternal linux kernel way,
>> you want it you write it ;). Me, i'm happy with the current approach
>> - but of course, i'm only a user ;).
>
> _I_ don't want to get EVMS in, sorry. I _do_ want a proper volume
> managment framework, but I can live with it not beeing in before 2.8.
>

Good for you. Most people can't/won't wait for it. They will see that linux
doesn't have a key feature for enterprises, and say that linux still isn't
mature enough for them and at best only use linux on some dinky little
webservers, like it has been used in the past. There isn't a whole lot of
that market left. If we want to move forward and offer something to a
broader base of companies, we need features like this included.

--Brian Jackson

p.s. Maybe you could keep your replies to constructive criticism, instead of
just dogging EVMS. Some people actually do want linux to improve.

> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/