From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161038AbWF0HxM (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:53:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161039AbWF0HxM (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:53:12 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:40350 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161038AbWF0HxK (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:53:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 08:52:57 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Nick Piggin , Steven Whitehouse , Linus Torvalds , David Teigland , Patrick Caulfield , Kevin Anderson , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GFS2 and DLM Message-ID: <20060627075257.GB21066@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Ingo Molnar , Nick Piggin , Steven Whitehouse , Linus Torvalds , David Teigland , Patrick Caulfield , Kevin Anderson , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1150805833.3856.1356.camel@quoit.chygwyn.com> <4497EAC6.3050003@yahoo.com.au> <1150807630.3856.1372.camel@quoit.chygwyn.com> <44980064.6040306@yahoo.com.au> <20060623144530.GA32291@infradead.org> <20060626210355.GA16827@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060626210355.GA16827@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 11:03:55PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > the generic file read code so GFS should do so aswell. And there's a > > technical reason for not exporting aswell as the generic file read > > interface is far too complicated already. > > GFS is different here mostly due to locking, If it requires locking there it's sendifle and splice_read implementation are wrong. ocfs2 seems to do pretty well using the generic code here, so there definitly is a explanation required why gfs can't do the same. > so i'd reformulate your request as a request to extend the VFS to unify > clustering filesystems - which is a nice cleanup goal but not a merge > showstopper to me. duplicating half the generic read code is definitily not okay. I'm happy to have a discussion about more or less hacly ways to share the code mid-term.