On Thu, Jan 18 2018 at 6:56am -0500, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18 2018 at 6:42am -0500, > Bryn M. Reeves <bmr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 04:29:36PM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 17 2018 at 2:33pm -0500, > > > As for dm-loop, doubling the performance of the loopback driver is quite > > > nice (especially with only 1/7 the number of lines of code as > > > drives/block/loop.c). > > > > Isn't this going to raise the same objection that akpm had years ago, > > with the original dm-loop (block mapping) target? > > > > We had an even bigger performance boost with that but it was rejected > > on the grounds that a second loop back block device implementation was > > not welcome unless the two could share code. > > Could. But I wasn't around for that particular spat. It seems quite > misplaced to swoop in with an aire of design purity to defeat a DM > target that shows such clear wins. > > This idea that our poor Linux users will lose their heads because they > have multiple options is also idiotic. > > But we'll cross that bridge as needed (before burning it down?) ;) Reflecting on getting spun up about the potential for a fight made me feel like this guy wanting to use the phone in "Dumb and Dumber": https://youtu.be/Gue2LvHibpg?t=25 Could easily be in the end someone like akpm or Jens will just effectively punch me in the face from inside their phone booth ;) -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
