On Wed, 2004-08-11 at 10:11, Chris Wright wrote: > * John Cherry (cherry@xxxxxxxx) wrote: > > At the summit I attended, we also talked about using GFS as the initial > > "consumer" of the cluster infrastructure. The cluster infrastructure > > doesn't stand a chance of mainline acceptance without a consumer that > > both validates the interfaces and hardens the services. > > > > I am not being as subtile as RHAT was at the summit. If we are going to > > start the process to mainline the components needed to make linux a > > "clusterable kernel" this year, we will need to get behind the core > > services that we discussed at the summit. > > I read Lars' comments as something like: > There's still a lot of work to do, and it's not a foregone conclusion > that any of this would hit mainline. Agreed. There are no guarentees of mainline acceptance. We just need to line up against the unwritten "criteria" for mainline acceptance of this kind of code. These include infrastructure (common services) that would support multiple cluster implementations, not invasive to the core kernel, provide real value (i.e. infrastructure for a clustered filesystem), maintainable, active development community behind the code, etc. > > Maybe I extrapolated too far. However, the kernel summit included > a reasonable bit of pushback on placing this in the kernel without > convincing arguments to the contrary. So I think it's reasonable to > consider part of the work is still clearly defining that need. There were some user vs kernel discussions on the list prior to the summit, but the consensus at the summit was that the core common services would be in the kernel. After all, the initial consumer of the cluster infrastructure (clustered filesystem) is in the kernel. John
