Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 00:28:28 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Daniel Phillips <phillips@istop.com>
Cc: Joel.Becker@oracle.com, linux-cluster@redhat.com, wim.coekaerts@oracle.com,
       linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, ak@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining
Message-Id: <20050904002828.3d26f64c.akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <200509040240.08467.phillips@istop.com>
References: <20050901104620.GA22482@redhat.com>
	<200509040022.37102.phillips@istop.com>
	<20050903214653.1b8a8cb7.akpm@osdl.org>
	<200509040240.08467.phillips@istop.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1259
Lines: 25

Daniel Phillips <phillips@istop.com> wrote:
>
> If the only user is their tools I would say let it go ahead and be cute, even 
>  sickeningly so.  It is not supposed to be a general dlm api, at least that is 
>  my understanding.  It is just supposed to be an interface for their tools.  
>  Of course it would help to know exactly how those tools use it.

Well I'm not saying "don't do this".   I'm saying "eww" and "why?".

If there is already a richer interface into all this code (such as a
syscall one) and it's feasible to migrate the open() tricksies to that API
in the future if it all comes unstuck then OK.  That's why I asked (thus
far unsuccessfully):

   Are you saying that the posix-file lookalike interface provides
   access to part of the functionality, but there are other APIs which are
   used to access the rest of the functionality?  If so, what is that
   interface, and why cannot that interface offer access to 100% of the
   functionality, thus making the posix-file tricks unnecessary?

-
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/