Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Device-mapper submission 6/7 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Date | 17 Oct 2002 10:26:44 +0200 |
| |
Joe Thornber <joe@fib011235813.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
> Is there anyone out there who is going to argue against using an fs > interface when I submit it ? Speak now or forever hold your peace ! > > If dm now misses the feature freeze deadline due to this extra work, > is it going to be possible to still place it in 2.5 at a later date ? > (dm with an ioctl interface is better than no dm at all).
How would the fs based interface work ?
plan9 style echo 'rename foo bla' > /dmfs/command would seem ugly to me (just look at the horrible parser code for that in mtrr.c)
doing it fully as fs objects (mv /dmfs/volume1 /dmfs/volume2 for rename) could likely get complicated and it's doubtful that VFS semantics completely map to DM volumes.
Unless you have a clear and simple way to handle these issues I would suggest to stay with simple ioctls. They look clean enough.
-Andi
- 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/
| |