At Tue, 25 May 2010 10:12:53 -0700 (PDT), Sage Weil wrote: > > On Tue, 25 May 2010, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > What's the reason for not having these drivers upstream? Do we gain > > > anything by hiding them from our users and requiring them to install the > > > drivers separately from somewhere else? > > > > > > > Six months. > > FWIW, we (Ceph) aren't complaining about the 6 month lag time (and I don't > think the Sheepdog guys are either). > I agree. We aren't complaining about it. > From our perspective, the current BlockDriver abstraction is ideal, as it > represents the reality of qemu's interaction with storage. Any 'external' > interface will be inferior to that in one way or another. But either way, > we are perfectly willing to work with you to all to keep in sync with any > future BlockDriver API improvements. It is worth our time investment even > if the API is less stable. > I agree. > The ability to dynamically load a shared object using the existing api > would make development a bit easier, but I'm not convinced it's better for > for users. I think having ceph and sheepdog upstream with qemu will serve > end users best, and we at least are willing to spend the time to help > maintain that code in qemu.git. > I agree. Regards, Kazutaka -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
