On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:31:31 +0100 Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 09 2008, Alasdair G Kergon wrote: > > Here's the latest version of dm-loop, for comparison. > > > > To try it out, > > ln -s dmsetup dmlosetup > > and supply similar basic parameters to losetup. > > (using dmsetup version 1.02.11 or higher) > > Why oh why does dm always insist to reinvent everything? That's bad > enough in itself, but on top of that most of the extra stuff ends up > being essentially unmaintained. I don't quite get how the dm version is reinventing things. They use the dmsetup command that they use for everything else and provide a small and fairly clean module for bio specific loop instead of piling it onto loop.c.... Their code doesn't have the fancy hole handling that yours does, but neither did yours 4 days ago ;) > > If we instead improve loop, everyone wins. > > Sorry to sound a bit harsh, but sometimes it doesn't hurt to think a > bit outside your own sandbox. > It is a natural fit in either place, as both loop and dm have a good infrastructure for it. I'm not picky about where it ends up, but dm wouldn't be a bad place. -chris - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
