Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:19166 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753728Ab3JCNMv (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Oct 2013 09:12:51 -0400 Message-ID: <524D6D38.1040506@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 09:12:24 -0400 From: Ric Wheeler MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benny Halevy CC: Christoph Hellwig , "J. Bruce Fields" , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Steven Whitehouse , Bob Peterson , Abhijith Das , Andrew Price , Paul Evans Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v0 05/49] pnfsd: introduce pnfsd header files References: <20130929114327.GB25750@infradead.org> <52481939.7060405@primarydata.com> <20130929121345.GA21083@infradead.org> <52481B11.2080407@primarydata.com> <20130929122130.GI21083@infradead.org> <20130929123553.GA7510@infradead.org> <20131001203047.GH16245@pad.fieldses.org> <524C0556.9070705@primarydata.com> <20131002160759.GB27988@infradead.org> <524D0873.40602@primarydata.com> <20131003095511.GA30147@infradead.org> <524D6312.7020709@primarydata.com> In-Reply-To: <524D6312.7020709@primarydata.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/03/2013 08:29 AM, Benny Halevy wrote: > On 2013-10-03 12:55, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> >On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 09:02:27AM +0300, Benny Halevy wrote: >>> >>Just that this is dlm specific logic. >>> >>For example, using dlm_ino_hash() in nfsd4_pnfs_dlm_layoutget(). >>> >>Or even knowing that >>> >> layout->lg_stripe_type = STRIPE_SPARSE; >>> >>assumes knowledge of the underlying cluster fs implementation. >> > >> >Which in-tree or soon in-tree filesystem do you care about? And why >> >don't we see pnfs support for it submitted instead of the fairly useless >> >gfs2 support? > I picked gfs2 as the initial use case for simplicity and ease of review. > If there is a rough consensus that it's useless and not worthy of inclusion > then the one we care about the most is exofs that has a more complete pnfs > implementation. > > Benny > I don't see having GFS2 supported as a base for pNFS as useless. Christoph, is this a concern about GFS2 being too complicated for normal deployment or a lack in the pNFS support on top of it? thanks! Ric