Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264218AbTEXAvh (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 May 2003 20:51:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264219AbTEXAvd (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 May 2003 20:51:33 -0400 Received: from zeus.kernel.org ([204.152.189.113]:14555 "EHLO zeus.kernel.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264218AbTEXAv2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 May 2003 20:51:28 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 17:33:07 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Joe Thornber Cc: Linux Mailing List , Christoph Hellwig , Alexander Viro Subject: Re: Device-mapper filesystem interface Message-ID: <20030524003307.GB14875@kroah.com> References: <20030522085036.GD441@fib011235813.fsnet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030522085036.GD441@fib011235813.fsnet.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1648 Lines: 37 On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 09:50:36AM +0100, Joe Thornber wrote: > I thought I'd kick off a thread concerning the filesystem interface > for device-mapper after it came up on last nights 'must-fix' meeting. > > To recap: > > Alasdair Kergon and I spent a lot of time thinking last autumn about > how to best map the dm semantics onto an fs. The end result was this > very rough and ready patchset: > > http://people.sistina.com/~thornber/patches/2.5-unstable/2.5.51/2.5.51-dmfs-1.tar.bz2 > > The reception was not favourable. People didn't like the way creating > a directory was analagous to creating a device, or the fact that these > device directories were pre-populated with table, status and > dependency files. Gregkh was the only person who put forward > alternatives ideas (sysfs), and I don't think even he had thought > through how all of the dm functionality was going to be mapped. eg, > with dmfs as it stands the 'wait for event' ioctl has translated into > a poll on the status file, ie wait until the status file changes - I > think this is neat. Yeah, I went down the sysfs path for a while, then got distracted by other issues (driver core, etc.) If you need this feature, then yes, a dmfs does make sense to have, and not use sysfs. I'm not opposed to your implementation, it was just a bit strange at first glance. Care to update your old patch for this? thanks, greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/