Re: [PATCH/RFC] Lustre VFS patch, version 2

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>]

On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 11:53:43AM -0400, Peter J. Braam wrote:
> Perhaps it is useful to explain that vendors (Novell, Dell, HP and
> others) have urged me to enquire if the hooks could go into 2.6.  All of
> them have really major Lustre customers, running top10 super computing
> clusters with Lustre.  Having the hooks avoids having to patch vendor
> kernels, which breaks support arrangements.  As for our position, it's
> in fact easier to wait and just collect clever insights from time to
> time. 
> 
> I represent them here.  I understand and would respect the wait until
> 2.7 argument, but I think it is workable to get them into 2.6.  Is it
> really a big deal to go through these small patches a few more times to
> judge if they are safe, and to include them?  I think it would help
> people who care and support Linux financically.  I only hear Christoph
> arguing against it, are there other insights?

Trond also clearly spoke against it and Anton didn't seem to be impressed
by the code quality of your patches either ;-)  Only lmb who certainly
has a vested interest by beeing responsible for cluster at one of the above
mentioned vendors has speaken for it.  Given that SLES9 will already have
lustre life should already be much simpler for you.  If clusterfs is
actually interested in maintaining lustre as part of the linux kernel I'm
the last one to object, but without you place the burden of maintaining
all the hooks that are very specific to your filesystem on us.

p.s. where's lustre's current cvs tree?  I'd like to actually build a module
vs the hooks that you posted and growel in the cvs history a little.