From: Benny Halevy Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/13] RFC: pnfs: full mount/umount infrastructure Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:39:30 +0200 Message-ID: <4C8E37A2.4090103@panasas.com> References: <1283450419-5648-1-git-send-email-iisaman@netapp.com> <1283450419-5648-8-git-send-email-iisaman@netapp.com> <20100910235858.GB11231@infradead.org> <1284163679.14078.106.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <4C8E0A03.3020500@panasas.com> <20100913142851.GA10170@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Trond Myklebust , Fred Isaman , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Received: from daytona.panasas.com ([67.152.220.89]:39173 "EHLO daytona.int.panasas.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751208Ab0IMOjd (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:39:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100913142851.GA10170@infradead.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2010-09-13 16:28, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 01:24:51PM +0200, Benny Halevy wrote: >> However, on the longer run I'd like us to consider formalizing >> the kABI for non-GPLed layout drivers. > > No. Non-GPLed drivers will have a very hard way to stand against the > derived work clauses for some specificly written new code anyway, and > if you haven't noticed yet there's no kABI in mainline anyway. > >> I think that this is a great selling point as it fully materializes the >> extensibility of the layout-type / layout-driver design model. > > Drinking again? > Heh, just water :-) I guess I'll have to agree to disagree. Benny