On 10/03/2013 08:29 AM, Benny Halevy wrote:
On 2013-10-03 12:55, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 09:02:27AM +0300, Benny Halevy wrote:
>>Just that this is dlm specific logic.
>>For example, using dlm_ino_hash() in nfsd4_pnfs_dlm_layoutget().
>>Or even knowing that
>> layout->lg_stripe_type = STRIPE_SPARSE;
>>assumes knowledge of the underlying cluster fs implementation.
>
>Which in-tree or soon in-tree filesystem do you care about? And why
>don't we see pnfs support for it submitted instead of the fairly useless
>gfs2 support?
I picked gfs2 as the initial use case for simplicity and ease of review.
If there is a rough consensus that it's useless and not worthy of inclusion
then the one we care about the most is exofs that has a more complete pnfs
implementation.
Benny
I don't see having GFS2 supported as a base for pNFS as useless. Christoph, is
this a concern about GFS2 being too complicated for normal deployment or a lack
in the pNFS support on top of it?
thanks!
Ric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
