On 10/18/2011 10:48 PM, Stephen Bromfield wrote:
A new patch for the 2.6.39 kernel.
Signed-off-by: Ming Zhao<dm-cache@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hmm? This is implementation #1 out of three.
And, incidentally, the least maintained; 2.3.39 isn't exactly the
most recent kernel.
(Otherwise one does wonder why Ming Zhao hasn't posted it himself).
(Incidentally, can we have a rule that the person sending a patch
_has_ to be listed as 'Signed-off-by', ie has to be the one actually
working on it?)
flashcache and that one from Tao Ma & Coly Li are the other two
versions of the same beast, all sharing the same codebase.
Not to mention my (slightly different) implementation which I'll be
presenting at LinuxCon Europe next week.
So maybe, just maybe, we should get out heads together and discuss
the merits and shortcomings of the various implementations.
And decide on a single implementation, not 4. Or a framework
allowing for all these variances.
But so it's hard to see why this implementation should go upstream
and none of the others.
And I somehow doubt Alasdair would agree on having several
implementations on the same topic.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
