From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06FA398F for ; Thu, 29 May 2014 18:13:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from usmailout4.samsung.com (mailout4.w2.samsung.com [211.189.100.14]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 825571FDED for ; Thu, 29 May 2014 18:13:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from uscpsbgex1.samsung.com (u122.gpu85.samsung.co.kr [203.254.195.122]) by usmailout4.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01(7.0.4.24.0) 64bit (built Nov 17 2011)) with ESMTP id <0N6C009QNLAGHK80@usmailout4.samsung.com> for ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org; Thu, 29 May 2014 14:13:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-id: <538778C5.7010505@partner.samsung.com> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 11:13:25 -0700 From: Daniel Phillips MIME-version: 1.0 To: Greg KH References: <53877319.5060407@partner.samsung.com> <20140529181319.GA24218@kroah.com> In-reply-to: <20140529181319.GA24218@kroah.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [topic] Richer internal block API List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 05/29/2014 11:13 AM, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:49:13AM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote: >> Hi Neil, >> >> This will be my annual proposal to open a general discussion about improving >> the internal block API, to be capable of doing all the things that the ZFS >> crowd claim are impossible without rampantly violating filesystem/raid >> layering. Attacking this in a storage-specific venue would also be good, >> however I view this issue as being at least as central as a number of topics >> already raised for general consideration. > Why didn't you bring this up at the filesystem summit a few months ago? > That's the best place for it, not at the kernel summit. Sorry, I did not have time to participate this year. I wonder though, why power management is regarded as a summit-worthy topic, but core functionality of the block layer is not. > >> Full disclosure dept: I have an agenda. I want to add the equivalent of >> Raidz etc to Tux3 without reimplementing a logical volume manager in the >> filesystem. > Like btrfs is doing? :) > > greg k-h Not like btrfs is doing, the opposite really. Regards, Daniel