On 09/20/2013 05:38 PM, Andy Grover wrote:
On 09/20/2013 11:36 AM, Dan Mick wrote:
The only question I have isn't about the modularization, but about the
fancy new backstore that prompted it, and how to support it. Not that I
expect much work will be needed, but Dan, are you or some other Ceph dev
around if an issue with bs_rbd comes up? :)
Sure. Maybe I should make sure there's a generic alias included
somewhere with contact info.
That's great to hear! :) I'd say you could add your copyright and
contact info to the file's header comment, if you wanted?
There was little enough in the code that changed from bs_rdwr.c that
I didn't bother with copyright, really, but at least http://ceph.com is
in the README.rbd. That might be enough to be a start.
I hope it's clear that we support this work, by the way; we plan on
making sure additional packages with bs_rbd.so are available to whoever
needs them, hopefully by petitioning the distros, but if not, building
them ourselves.
Wow. Nice.
BTW you meant additional *tgt* packages with bs_rbd.so, right? Because
someone could uncharitably read what you said as saying you're going to
distribute just bs_rbd.so separate from tgt, and that wouldn't be a good
idea. I just wanted to restate that this change is intended to enable a
separate binary subpackaging of bs_rbd.so only. The exports from tgtd
are not a "stable API", and the only versions of tgt and bs_rbd.so
guaranteed to work together are those built together.
Whatever works, sure.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stgt" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
