From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264502AbUEXSGS (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 14:06:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264669AbUEXSGS (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 14:06:18 -0400 Received: from dh132.citi.umich.edu ([141.211.133.132]:3203 "EHLO lade.trondhjem.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264502AbUEXSGQ convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 14:06:16 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Lustre VFS patch From: Trond Myklebust To: hch@infradead.org Cc: "Peter J. Braam" , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "'Phil Schwan'" In-Reply-To: <20040524120521.GD26863@infradead.org> References: <20040524114009.96CE13100E2@moraine.clusterfs.com> <20040524120521.GD26863@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Message-Id: <1085421973.6385.74.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 14:06:13 -0400 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org På må , 24/05/2004 klokka 08:05, skreiv hch@infradead.org: > I can't comment on the exact change, you need to talk to trond about > these. But as-is they change the API exported to filesystems and thus > it's and absolute no-go for 2.6. Where have you been when Trond's > intent patches went in? Hiding under a rock? To be fair: At the time, Peter and I did indeed discuss the changes that were needed in order to support both Lustre and NFS. The main reason why I ended up sending in the "NFS minimal" patch was IIRC that Peter was not ready at the time to send in a full Lustre client that could make use of this interface. Peter, I have a couple of objections here vfs_intent-flags_rename-vanilla-2.6.patch and vfs-intent_exec-vanilla-2.6.patch breaks NFS (though ironically it fixes CIFS) due to that gratuitous change of semantics from FMODE_READ/FMODE_WRITE to O_RDONLY/O_WRONLY/O_RDWR. Exactly why couldn't Lustre work with the native VFS semantics? vfs_intent-flags_rename-vanilla-2.6.patch also reverts the format from being a union of intents for various operations to being a single structure. This goes against what was agreed upon on linux-fsdevel when this issue was discussed last summer (in fact Linus was the one who requested the union approach). What justification exists now for a change? The vfs-intent_lustre-vanilla-2.6.patch + the "intent_release()" code. What if you end up crossing a mountpoint? How do you then know to which superblock/filesystem the private field belongs if there are more than one user of this mechanism? vfs-revalidate_counter-vanilla-2.6.patch: can't "counter" be put into the private part of your intent structure so that the whole test may be done within Lustre? vfs-revalidate_special-vanilla-2.6.patch: see the use of the flag FS_REVAL_DOT in order to enable the revalidation of the current directory for those filesystems that need to do so. Cheers, Trond