Hi Folks, On 12/12/20 12:56 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 12/11/20 5:33 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 12/11/20 9:30 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote: >>> While I still think there needs to be a proper _upstream_ consumer of >>> blk_interposer as a condition of it going in.. I'll let others make the >>> call. >> >> That's an unequivocal rule. >> >>> As such, I'll defer to Jens, Christoph and others on whether your >>> minimalist blk_interposer hook is acceptable in the near-term. >> >> I don't think so, we don't do short term bandaids just to plan on >> ripping that out when the real functionality is there. IMHO, the dm >> approach is the way to go - it provides exactly the functionality that >> is needed in an appropriate way, instead of hacking some "interposer" >> into the core block layer. >> > Which is my plan, too. > > I'll be working with the Veeam folks to present a joint patchset (including the DM bits) for the next round. > Besides the dm approach, do you think Veeam's original requirement is a good use case of "block/bpf: add eBPF based block layer IO filtering"? https://lwn.net/ml/bpf/20200812163305.545447-1-leah.rumancik@xxxxxxxxx/ Thanks, Bob -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
