Re: [PATCH 0/7] dlm: overview

From: Daniel Phillips
Date: Tue Apr 26 2005 - 00:32:52 EST

On Monday 25 April 2005 17:09, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> Now that we have two (or three) options with actual users, now is the
> right time to finally come up with sane and useful abstractions. This is
> great.

Great thought, but it won't work unless you actually read them all, which I
hope is what you're proposing.

> With APIs, I think we do need a DLM-switch in the kernel, but also the
> DLMs should really seem much the same to user-space apps. From what I've
> seen, dlmfs is OCFS2 wasn't doing too badly there. The icing would of
> course be if even the configuration was roughly similar, and if OCFS2's
> configfs might prove valuable to other users too.

I'm a little skeptical about the chance of fitting an 11-parameter function
call into a generic kernel plug-in framework. Are those the exact same 11
parameters that God intended?

While it would be great to share a single dlm between gfs and ocfs2 - maybe
Lustre too - my crystal ball says that that laudable goal is unlikely to be
achieved in the near future, whereas there isn't much choice but to sort out
a common membership framework right now.

As far as I can see, only cluster membership wants or needs a common
framework. And I'm not sure that any of that even needs to be in-kernel.



> The cluster summit in June will certainly be a very ... exciting place.
> Let's hope this also stirs up KS a bit ;-)
> Oh, and just to anticipate that discussion, anyone who suggests to adopt
> the SAF AIS locking API into the kernel should be preemptively struck;
> that naming etc is just beyond words.
> Sincerely,
> Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@xxxxxxx>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at