Re: [PATCH 1a/7] dlm: core locking

[Daniel Phillips <phillips@istop.com>]

On Thursday 28 April 2005 08:21, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2005-04-27T22:41:04, Daniel Phillips <phillips@istop.com> wrote:
> > > Just a couple comments here, more will come as time permits. I know you
> > > consider cluster file systems to be "obscure" apps...
> >
> > Oh the contrary, cluster filesystems are the main focus of and reason for
> > the current submission.
>
> He was actually quoting David. And indeed it is very important that the
> DLM interfaces be generally useful, not just for a specific cluster
> filesystem; if that was the goal, it would be an internal component only
> and no need to expose it.

True, sort of.  Remember, the _only_ argument for (g)dlm being in-kernel is to 
tighten up the interface for filesystems.  If (g)dlm could be trimmed down by 
supporting _only_ in-kernel filesystems, with a different, userspace lock 
manager for user space apps, well, that is a strategy that has to be 
considered.

Taking part of (g)dlm out of kernel is also something that needs to be looked 
it.  It is a little on the biggish side.

Don't forget, (g)dlm is just a cluster service, and at present, a service that 
has exactly one user in the whole world: gfs.  We'd like to attract more, but 
not at the cost of kernel bloat.

Regards,

Daniel