Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
[mec] > > Peter, your patch fails if CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD=m and CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM=y. Ewww, you're right. As I believe I already mentioned, this is why I was originally opposed to mixing lvm and md into one directory. Not that this was a valid objection, of course. The easy fix would be to unconditionally enter the directory. But let's do better, shall we? [Jeff Garzik] > Temporary variables shouldn't be needed... We need to put drivers/md > in both SUB_DIRS and MOD_SUB_DIRS if lvm=Y and md=M (or vice versa), > so it sounds like something like this would work: > if (config_md==y || config_lvm=y) > sub_dirs += drivers/md > if (config_md==m || config_lvm==m) > mod_sub_dirs += drivers/md Here's the best I can come up with. Completely untested. Yes, it's ugly. So are the alternatives. The version with temp variables came out to 21 lines. Comments? # [ drivers/Config.in ] # # enter dir for kernel case if MD==y or LVM==y ifneq($(findstring y,$(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD) $(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM)),) SUB_DIRS += md endif # enter dir for module case if MD==y or MD==m or LVM==m ifneq($(findstring m,$(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD) $(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM)),) MOD_SUB_DIRS += md else ifeq($(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD),y) MOD_SUB_DIRS += md endif endif Peter - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > Peter, your patch fails if CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD=m and CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM=y. > > The simple correct way is to use some ugly temporary variables: > MD and MMD. Temporary variables shouldn't be needed... We need to put drivers/md in both SUB_DIRS and MOD_SUB_DIRS if lvm=Y and md=M (or vice versa), so it sounds like something like this would work: if (config_md==y || config_lvm=y) sub_dirs += drivers/md if (config_md==m || config_lvm==m) mod_sub_dirs += drivers/md - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
Peter, your patch fails if CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD=m and CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM=y. The simple correct way is to use some ugly temporary variables: MD and MMD. Michael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
[Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > We don't need a config option just to jump into another directory. > Probably just a makefile or config bug.. Yeah, this is not well-tested but at least *looks* obviously correct. (BTW the ugliness in drivers/makefile is sort of why I was originally opposed to grouping MD and LVM in the same directory.) Peter diff -urN 2.4.0test9pre7/drivers/Makefile md-test/drivers/Makefile --- 2.4.0test9pre7/drivers/Makefile Fri Sep 22 03:13:33 2000 +++ md-test/drivers/MakefileTue Sep 26 07:08:12 2000 @@ -137,6 +137,14 @@ else ifeq ($(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD),m) MOD_SUB_DIRS += md + else +ifeq ($(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM),y) +SUB_DIRS += md +else + ifeq ($(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM),m) + MOD_SUB_DIRS += md + endif +endif endif endif diff -urN 2.4.0test9pre7/drivers/md/Config.in md-test/drivers/md/Config.in --- 2.4.0test9pre7/drivers/md/Config.in Sat Sep 23 16:24:28 2000 +++ md-test/drivers/md/Config.inTue Sep 26 06:49:42 2000 @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ mainmenu_option next_comment comment 'Multi-device support (RAID and LVM)' -tristate 'Multiple devices driver support (RAID and LVM)' CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD +tristate 'Multiple devices (RAID) support' CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD dep_tristate ' Linear (append) mode' CONFIG_MD_LINEAR $CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD dep_tristate ' RAID-0 (striping) mode' CONFIG_MD_RAID0 $CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD dep_tristate ' RAID-1 (mirroring) mode' CONFIG_MD_RAID1 $CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ bool ' Auto Detect support' CONFIG_AUTODETECT_RAID fi -dep_tristate 'Logical volume manager (LVM) support' CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM $CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD +tristate 'Logical volume manager (LVM) support' CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM dep_mbool ' LVM information in proc filesystem' CONFIG_LVM_PROC_FS $CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM endmenu - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
[Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED]] We don't need a config option just to jump into another directory. Probably just a makefile or config bug.. Yeah, this is not well-tested but at least *looks* obviously correct. (BTW the ugliness in drivers/makefile is sort of why I was originally opposed to grouping MD and LVM in the same directory.) Peter diff -urN 2.4.0test9pre7/drivers/Makefile md-test/drivers/Makefile --- 2.4.0test9pre7/drivers/Makefile Fri Sep 22 03:13:33 2000 +++ md-test/drivers/MakefileTue Sep 26 07:08:12 2000 @@ -137,6 +137,14 @@ else ifeq ($(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD),m) MOD_SUB_DIRS += md + else +ifeq ($(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM),y) +SUB_DIRS += md +else + ifeq ($(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM),m) + MOD_SUB_DIRS += md + endif +endif endif endif diff -urN 2.4.0test9pre7/drivers/md/Config.in md-test/drivers/md/Config.in --- 2.4.0test9pre7/drivers/md/Config.in Sat Sep 23 16:24:28 2000 +++ md-test/drivers/md/Config.inTue Sep 26 06:49:42 2000 @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ mainmenu_option next_comment comment 'Multi-device support (RAID and LVM)' -tristate 'Multiple devices driver support (RAID and LVM)' CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD +tristate 'Multiple devices (RAID) support' CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD dep_tristate ' Linear (append) mode' CONFIG_MD_LINEAR $CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD dep_tristate ' RAID-0 (striping) mode' CONFIG_MD_RAID0 $CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD dep_tristate ' RAID-1 (mirroring) mode' CONFIG_MD_RAID1 $CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ bool ' Auto Detect support' CONFIG_AUTODETECT_RAID fi -dep_tristate 'Logical volume manager (LVM) support' CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM $CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD +tristate 'Logical volume manager (LVM) support' CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM dep_mbool ' LVM information in proc filesystem' CONFIG_LVM_PROC_FS $CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM endmenu - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
Peter, your patch fails if CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD=m and CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM=y. The simple correct way is to use some ugly temporary variables: MD and MMD. Michael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: Peter, your patch fails if CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD=m and CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM=y. The simple correct way is to use some ugly temporary variables: MD and MMD. Temporary variables shouldn't be needed... We need to put drivers/md in both SUB_DIRS and MOD_SUB_DIRS if lvm=Y and md=M (or vice versa), so it sounds like something like this would work: if (config_md==y || config_lvm=y) sub_dirs += drivers/md if (config_md==m || config_lvm==m) mod_sub_dirs += drivers/md - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
[mec] Peter, your patch fails if CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD=m and CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM=y. Ewww, you're right. As I believe I already mentioned, this is why I was originally opposed to mixing lvm and md into one directory. Not that this was a valid objection, of course. The easy fix would be to unconditionally enter the directory. But let's do better, shall we? [Jeff Garzik] Temporary variables shouldn't be needed... We need to put drivers/md in both SUB_DIRS and MOD_SUB_DIRS if lvm=Y and md=M (or vice versa), so it sounds like something like this would work: if (config_md==y || config_lvm=y) sub_dirs += drivers/md if (config_md==m || config_lvm==m) mod_sub_dirs += drivers/md Here's the best I can come up with. Completely untested. Yes, it's ugly. So are the alternatives. The version with temp variables came out to 21 lines. Comments? # [ drivers/Config.in ] # # enter dir for kernel case if MD==y or LVM==y ifneq($(findstring y,$(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD) $(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM)),) SUB_DIRS += md endif # enter dir for module case if MD==y or MD==m or LVM==m ifneq($(findstring m,$(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD) $(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM)),) MOD_SUB_DIRS += md else ifeq($(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD),y) MOD_SUB_DIRS += md endif endif Peter - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Jan Niehusmann wrote: > > But I don't think there is anything wrong with grouping RAID and LVM under > > the title "md", and just leaving it as such. > It seems that the current setup makes it impossible to compile lvm without > compiling md.c. But md.c is not needed for lvm, is it? > > I think we need two different config options now: One to enable the > drivers/md/ directory, and one to compile md.c. We don't need a config option just to jump into another directory. Probably just a makefile or config bug.. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 08:04:36PM +0200, Jan Niehusmann wrote: > compiling md.c. But md.c is not needed for lvm, is it? It is not needed, correct. Andrea - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
> But I don't think there is anything wrong with grouping RAID and LVM under > the title "md", and just leaving it as such. It seems that the current setup makes it impossible to compile lvm without compiling md.c. But md.c is not needed for lvm, is it? I think we need two different config options now: One to enable the drivers/md/ directory, and one to compile md.c. Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
But I don't think there is anything wrong with grouping RAID and LVM under the title "md", and just leaving it as such. It seems that the current setup makes it impossible to compile lvm without compiling md.c. But md.c is not needed for lvm, is it? I think we need two different config options now: One to enable the drivers/md/ directory, and one to compile md.c. Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 08:04:36PM +0200, Jan Niehusmann wrote: compiling md.c. But md.c is not needed for lvm, is it? It is not needed, correct. Andrea - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 01:34:33PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: > common association. It's a documentation issue as much as anything, Agreed. > and you've basically taken care of that in -pre6. Looks fine to me too. Andrea - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
[Peter Samuelson] > > "md", on the other hand, is well-established as referring to Linux > > RAID, but if you add lvm the label is too narrow. [Linus] > Yes, we have all thes _historical_ reasons why people think "md" > refers to the particular RAID code in question. But so what? LVM is > also very much an issue of handling multiple disks, and organizing > them. "md" as shorthand for "multiple disks" works fine for LVM too. Well, I just thought there could be confusion between 'md' -> 'multiple disks' versus 'md' -> 'Linux RAID drivers' which is probably the more common association. It's a documentation issue as much as anything, and you've basically taken care of that in -pre6. > Does anybody have any real technical arguments against it, or are all > arguments of the type "I'm used to 'md' meaning RAID, and I am not > willing to reconsider"? No, actually I was more arguing against 'sm' than anything else. Originally I thought the directory 'md' was just fine; it was only when Andrea brought up the name issue that I started thinking of LVM and the alternatives. By all means leave it as it is. Peter - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Peter Samuelson wrote: > > But most if not all block drivers, and some char drivers for that > matter, could be considered part of "storage management". So the label > is too broad. "md", on the other hand, is well-established as > referring to Linux RAID, but if you add lvm the label is too narrow. Why? Yes, we have all thes _historical_ reasons why people think "md" refers to the particular RAID code in question. But so what? LVM is also very much an issue of handling multiple disks, and organizing them. "md" as shorthand for "multiple disks" works fine for LVM too. I think most people who complain about the "md" directory naming do so just because they have this emotional attachement to "md" as the particular implementation that it implied a year ago, and they've gotten used to that association. But I don't think there is anything wrong with grouping RAID and LVM under the title "md", and just leaving it as such. If you look at pre6, the comments changed a bit to make it clearer that MD now includes both LVM and RAID as equal partners, and I don't see any problem with that setup. Does anybody have any real technical arguments against it, or are all arguments of the type "I'm used to 'md' meaning RAID, and I am not willing to reconsider"? Sure, it could be called "sm" for "storage management" too. Or "dm" for "disk management". Or it could be under drivers/block/multi. Or it could validly be called any number of things. I just think that "md" was a valid name too, and I got the patch with that name, so.. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
[Peter Samuelson] "md", on the other hand, is well-established as referring to Linux RAID, but if you add lvm the label is too narrow. [Linus] Yes, we have all thes _historical_ reasons why people think "md" refers to the particular RAID code in question. But so what? LVM is also very much an issue of handling multiple disks, and organizing them. "md" as shorthand for "multiple disks" works fine for LVM too. Well, I just thought there could be confusion between 'md' - 'multiple disks' versus 'md' - 'Linux RAID drivers' which is probably the more common association. It's a documentation issue as much as anything, and you've basically taken care of that in -pre6. Does anybody have any real technical arguments against it, or are all arguments of the type "I'm used to 'md' meaning RAID, and I am not willing to reconsider"? No, actually I was more arguing against 'sm' than anything else. Originally I thought the directory 'md' was just fine; it was only when Andrea brought up the name issue that I started thinking of LVM and the alternatives. By all means leave it as it is. Peter - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
Peter Samuelson wrote: > But most if not all block drivers, and some char drivers for that > matter, could be considered part of "storage management". So the label > is too broad. "md", on the other hand, is well-established as > referring to Linux RAID, but if you add lvm the label is too narrow. md = metadisk or multiple disks. Either, lvm applies :) Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
[aa] > Ok, I see your point of grouping them together. > > So I think drivers/sm (Storage Management) would be cleaner. LVM and > MD are two implementations of Storage Management. But most if not all block drivers, and some char drivers for that matter, could be considered part of "storage management". So the label is too broad. "md", on the other hand, is well-established as referring to Linux RAID, but if you add lvm the label is too narrow. We're really talking about pseudo-devices layered on real devices. In which case we should add nbd.c and loop.c and call it drivers/block/pseudo/ or drivers/block/meta/. Linus? > drivers/sm/lvm > drivers/sm/md There is non-zero overhead for splitting directories, so it shouldn't be done on a whim. What I'm thinking of is the individual directory Makefiles, which do need maintenance from time to time. We're only talking about 8 source files at the moment, and I don't see that number going up too much. Peter - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 01:48:23PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > (and I think LVM can do striping too). Yes, they have different Yes LVM does striping too (it overlaps with raid0 functionality provided by MD). > It makes sense to group them together. Neither is a true hardware > driver, and they have many common goals. Ok, I see your point of grouping them together. So I think drivers/sm (Storage Management) would be cleaner. LVM and MD are two implementations of Storage Management. Even better: drivers/sm/lvm drivers/sm/md Andrea - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 04:11:46PM +0200, Jan Niehusmann wrote: >> Yes, lvm.c and lvm-snap.c are missing from drivers/md/. > >LVM and MD have nothing common. I disagree. Yes, they have no _code_ in common. They have a completely distinct history, and they have distinct users. But they are, in the end, the same thing. They are higher-level drivers that do conceptually the same thing, namely manage the low-level drivers as a potentially common resource. In fact, some of the MD and LVM code do the same things. CONFIG_MD_LINEAR and CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM can be used to do the same thing (and I think LVM can do striping too). Yes, they have different interfaces, but they have the same issues. It makes sense to group them together. Neither is a true hardware driver, and they have many common goals. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrea Arcangeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 04:11:46PM +0200, Jan Niehusmann wrote: Yes, lvm.c and lvm-snap.c are missing from drivers/md/. LVM and MD have nothing common. I disagree. Yes, they have no _code_ in common. They have a completely distinct history, and they have distinct users. But they are, in the end, the same thing. They are higher-level drivers that do conceptually the same thing, namely manage the low-level drivers as a potentially common resource. In fact, some of the MD and LVM code do the same things. CONFIG_MD_LINEAR and CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM can be used to do the same thing (and I think LVM can do striping too). Yes, they have different interfaces, but they have the same issues. It makes sense to group them together. Neither is a true hardware driver, and they have many common goals. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
[aa] Ok, I see your point of grouping them together. So I think drivers/sm (Storage Management) would be cleaner. LVM and MD are two implementations of Storage Management. But most if not all block drivers, and some char drivers for that matter, could be considered part of "storage management". So the label is too broad. "md", on the other hand, is well-established as referring to Linux RAID, but if you add lvm the label is too narrow. We're really talking about pseudo-devices layered on real devices. In which case we should add nbd.c and loop.c and call it drivers/block/pseudo/ or drivers/block/meta/. Linus? drivers/sm/lvm drivers/sm/md There is non-zero overhead for splitting directories, so it shouldn't be done on a whim. What I'm thinking of is the individual directory Makefiles, which do need maintenance from time to time. We're only talking about 8 source files at the moment, and I don't see that number going up too much. Peter - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
Peter Samuelson wrote: But most if not all block drivers, and some char drivers for that matter, could be considered part of "storage management". So the label is too broad. "md", on the other hand, is well-established as referring to Linux RAID, but if you add lvm the label is too narrow. md = metadisk or multiple disks. Either, lvm applies :) Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 06:38:39PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: > Right. Functionally they overlap (lvm can do the equivalent of md > linear) but structurally, the md drivers all operate under the md lvm can do linear and raid0 (striping in two or more disks), and it supports live snapshotting of the logical volume (but it's a not a persistent snapshot at the moment so you lose its data when you reboot). It's still useful for backups of a raw logical volume though. Checkpoint and block, snapshot, unblock and then backup from the snapshot and then drop the snapshot when the backup completes. > Since it's just two source files I would leave it in drivers/block/. Yep, that looks ok to me. Andrea - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
[Andrea] > LVM and MD have nothing common. They're two completly orthogonal > piece of code Right. Functionally they overlap (lvm can do the equivalent of md linear) but structurally, the md drivers all operate under the md framework and user-toolset while lvm has its own framework and toolset. > LVM should live in drivers/lvm not drivers/md. Since it's just two source files I would leave it in drivers/block/. If someone starts merging in e.g. IBM lvm components it could make sense to move it. Peter - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 05:47:36PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 04:11:46PM +0200, Jan Niehusmann wrote: > > Yes, lvm.c and lvm-snap.c are missing from drivers/md/. > > LVM and MD have nothing common. Yes, I know. I'm not arguing about the right location for lvm. But lvm has been moved from drivers/block/Makefile to drivers/md/Makefile, so lvm.c has to follow. (Or Makefile has to be changed again) If lvm is in drivers/md or in drivers/lvm is a matter of taste. drivers/lvm is more logical, but having another directory for only two source files? Putting it in the same directory as md is not too bad, because both do similar things: They take existing block devices and somehow combine them to a bigger one. Put it wherever you want. I just don't care. But make it work. ;-) Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 04:11:46PM +0200, Jan Niehusmann wrote: > Yes, lvm.c and lvm-snap.c are missing from drivers/md/. LVM and MD have nothing common. They're two completly orthogonal piece of code (you can put LVM on top of MD but that's just because of the nice reentrance of the blkdev API as you can run loop on top of ext2 on top of ramdisk). I don't think it's good idea to mix LVM and MD in the same directory. LVM should live in drivers/lvm not drivers/md. Andrea - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 08:54:55PM -0400, Mohammad A. Haque wrote: > I think lvm and lvm-snap didn't get moved into the md dir. Or maybe the > Makefile in md needs to be fixed. Yes, lvm.c and lvm-snap.c are missing from drivers/md/. Additionally, drivers/Makefile needs to be modified: If you use lvm as a module, and do not use md, the md directory is not included in MOD_SUB_DIRS. I just added ifeq ($(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM),y) SUB_DIRS += md MOD_SUB_DIRS += md else ifeq ($(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM),m) MOD_SUB_DIRS += md endif endif and now lvm works again. I don't know if this is correct if both md and lvm are used, as then MOD_SUB_DIRS will contain 'md' twice. Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 08:54:55PM -0400, Mohammad A. Haque wrote: I think lvm and lvm-snap didn't get moved into the md dir. Or maybe the Makefile in md needs to be fixed. Yes, lvm.c and lvm-snap.c are missing from drivers/md/. Additionally, drivers/Makefile needs to be modified: If you use lvm as a module, and do not use md, the md directory is not included in MOD_SUB_DIRS. I just added ifeq ($(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM),y) SUB_DIRS += md MOD_SUB_DIRS += md else ifeq ($(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LVM),m) MOD_SUB_DIRS += md endif endif and now lvm works again. I don't know if this is correct if both md and lvm are used, as then MOD_SUB_DIRS will contain 'md' twice. Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 04:11:46PM +0200, Jan Niehusmann wrote: Yes, lvm.c and lvm-snap.c are missing from drivers/md/. LVM and MD have nothing common. They're two completly orthogonal piece of code (you can put LVM on top of MD but that's just because of the nice reentrance of the blkdev API as you can run loop on top of ext2 on top of ramdisk). I don't think it's good idea to mix LVM and MD in the same directory. LVM should live in drivers/lvm not drivers/md. Andrea - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 05:47:36PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 04:11:46PM +0200, Jan Niehusmann wrote: Yes, lvm.c and lvm-snap.c are missing from drivers/md/. LVM and MD have nothing common. Yes, I know. I'm not arguing about the right location for lvm. But lvm has been moved from drivers/block/Makefile to drivers/md/Makefile, so lvm.c has to follow. (Or Makefile has to be changed again) If lvm is in drivers/md or in drivers/lvm is a matter of taste. drivers/lvm is more logical, but having another directory for only two source files? Putting it in the same directory as md is not too bad, because both do similar things: They take existing block devices and somehow combine them to a bigger one. Put it wherever you want. I just don't care. But make it work. ;-) Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
[Andrea] LVM and MD have nothing common. They're two completly orthogonal piece of code Right. Functionally they overlap (lvm can do the equivalent of md linear) but structurally, the md drivers all operate under the md framework and user-toolset while lvm has its own framework and toolset. LVM should live in drivers/lvm not drivers/md. Since it's just two source files I would leave it in drivers/block/. If someone starts merging in e.g. IBM lvm components it could make sense to move it. Peter - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 06:38:39PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: Right. Functionally they overlap (lvm can do the equivalent of md linear) but structurally, the md drivers all operate under the md lvm can do linear and raid0 (striping in two or more disks), and it supports live snapshotting of the logical volume (but it's a not a persistent snapshot at the moment so you lose its data when you reboot). It's still useful for backups of a raw logical volume though. Checkpoint and block, snapshot, unblock and then backup from the snapshot and then drop the snapshot when the backup completes. Since it's just two source files I would leave it in drivers/block/. Yep, that looks ok to me. Andrea - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
I think lvm and lvm-snap didn't get moved into the md dir. Or maybe the Makefile in md needs to be fixed. -- = Mohammad A. Haque http://www.haque.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Alcohol and calculus don't mix. Project Lead Don't drink and derive." --Unknown http://wm.themes.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] = - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
lvm in 2.4.0-test9pre5
I think lvm and lvm-snap didn't get moved into the md dir. Or maybe the Makefile in md needs to be fixed. -- = Mohammad A. Haque http://www.haque.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Alcohol and calculus don't mix. Project Lead Don't drink and derive." --Unknown http://wm.themes.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] = - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
