Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965214AbWECPWf (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 May 2006 11:22:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965210AbWECPWf (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 May 2006 11:22:35 -0400 Received: from mtagate3.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.152]:50216 "EHLO mtagate3.de.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965214AbWECPWe (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 May 2006 11:22:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1146668286.2661.23.camel@localhost> Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390: Hypervisor File System To: mschwid2@de.ibm.com Cc: akpm@osdl.org, Greg KH , ioe-lkml@rameria.de, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn_Engel?= , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kyle Moffett , mschwid2@de.ibm.com, Pekka J Enberg X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Build V70_M4_01112005 Beta 3NP January 11, 2005 Message-ID: From: Michael Holzheu Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 17:22:41 +0200 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D12ML061/12/M/IBM(Release 6.53HF654 | July 22, 2005) at 03/05/2006 17:23:43 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1685 Lines: 38 mschwid2@de.ltcfwd.linux.ibm.com wrote on 05/03/2006 04:58:06 PM: > On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 16:23 +0200, Michael Holzheu wrote: > > mschwid2@de.ltcfwd.linux.ibm.com wrote on 05/03/2006 04:17:40 PM: > > > And the user space then uses the parser only? Is now the parser > > > interface the "ABI" or the kernel interface that is in turn used by the > > > parser? And what happens if somebody comes up with a "better" parser > > > that does things subtly different? > > > > The ABI is not defined by the Parser. You have to specify the > > tag language, which is part of the ABI. Any parser, which is comliant > > to the specification of the tag language can be used. > > Optimist. One very last comment: I think for our problem to ensure consitency of hypervisor data, when an application always wants to get the complete set of information, the "one file" solution with a fully specified ASCII tag language format looks for me to be the easiest way to implement our solution. And I think, if one decides to use one file to provide all the information, it is better to have a standard data format than always invent new formats. And to use a standard ASCII format is in my eyes also better than to have a binary interface. If everybody says, that it is in principal not a good idea to use one file, than a snapshot mechanism for filesystems is probably go good method to provide consitency. And this is definitely not my decission... Michael - 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/