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 33450910 for ; Fri, 30 May 2014 09:56:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60A4E1FAB5 for ; Fri, 30 May 2014 09:56:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 11:56:21 +0200 (CEST) From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Luk=E1=A8_Czerner?= To: Greg KH In-Reply-To: <20140529181319.GA24218@kroah.com> Message-ID: References: <53877319.5060407@partner.samsung.com> <20140529181319.GA24218@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 Thu, 29 May 2014, Greg KH wrote: > Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 11:13:19 -0700 > From: Greg KH > To: Daniel Phillips > Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org > Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [topic] Richer internal block API > > 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. Actually we've sort-of started the discussion about this topic at LSF. Dave Chinner was the one who brought this up, the only problem was that his idea was in really early stage and I suppose it still is because I have not heard about this since then. But I agree that this kind of discussion is more suited for LSF rather than kernel summit since it's much more targeted to block vs. file systems interactions. > > > 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? :) Well, we want exactly what btrfs is _not_ doing :) -Lukas > > greg k-h > _______________________________________________ > Ksummit-discuss mailing list > Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss >