ping? On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Dan Mick <dan.mick@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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
