Re: [PATCH] Device-mapper submission 6/7

[Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>]

Joe Thornber <joe@fib011235813.fsnet.co.uk> writes:

> Is there anyone out there who is going to argue against using an fs
> interface when I submit it ?  Speak now or forever hold your peace !
> 
> If dm now misses the feature freeze deadline due to this extra work,
> is it going to be possible to still place it in 2.5 at a later date ?
> (dm with an ioctl interface is better than no dm at all).

How would the fs based interface work ? 

plan9 style echo 'rename foo bla' > /dmfs/command would seem ugly to me
(just look at the horrible parser code for that in mtrr.c) 

doing it fully as fs objects (mv /dmfs/volume1 /dmfs/volume2 for rename)
could likely get complicated and it's doubtful that VFS semantics completely
map to DM volumes.

Unless you have a clear and simple way to handle these issues I would
suggest to stay with simple ioctls. They look clean enough.

-Andi