[RFC][PATCH] lockd: refine support for deferred blocking locks

2007-12-21 Thread Mike Snitzer
On Dec 19, 2007 12:45 AM, J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 11:03:01PM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > I could be missing something blatantly obvious so please be kind... > > > > I would like to understand how one _should_ implement

Re: [0/4] DST: Distributed storage.

2007-12-04 Thread Mike Snitzer
On Dec 4, 2007 9:37 AM, Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Distributed storage. > > I'm pleased to announce the 10'th release of the distributed > storage subsystem (DST). This is a maintenance release and includes > bug fixes and simple feature extensions only. > > DST allows to form

Re: Distributed storage. Move away from char device ioctls.

2007-09-14 Thread Mike Snitzer
On 9/14/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > > Hi. > > > > I'm pleased to announce fourth release of the distributed storage > > subsystem, which allows to form a storage on top of remote and local > > nodes, which in turn can be exported to another storage as a no

Re: Distributed storage.

2007-08-02 Thread Mike Snitzer
On 7/31/07, Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi. > > I'm pleased to announce first release of the distributed storage > subsystem, which allows to form a storage on top of remote and local > nodes, which in turn can be exported to another storage as a node to > form tree-like storages.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Btrfs: a copy on write, snapshotting FS

2007-06-12 Thread Mike Snitzer
On 6/12/07, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello everyone, After the last FS summit, I started working on a new filesystem that maintains checksums of all file data and metadata. Many thanks to Zach Brown for his ideas, and to Dave Chinner for his help on benchmarking analysis. The bas

Re: forced umount?

2007-03-18 Thread Mike Snitzer
On 3/18/07, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 23:06 -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: > I'm interested in understanding the state of Linux with regard to > _really_ forcing a filesystem to unmount. > > There is a (stale) project at OSDL that has

Re: forced umount?

2007-03-16 Thread Mike Snitzer
On 3/16/07, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mike Snitzer wrote: > Is this forced umount work even considered worthwhile by the greater > Linux community? Is anyone actively working on this? Have a look at all the discussion about revoke/frevoke on lkml over the last

forced umount?

2007-03-16 Thread Mike Snitzer
I'm interested in understanding the state of Linux with regard to _really_ forcing a filesystem to unmount. There is a (stale) project at OSDL that has various implementations: http://developer.osdl.org/dev/fumount/ Its fairly clear that these efforts (e.g. badfs patches) haven't been given seri

lock_rename for cluster filesystems? (was: Re: [PATCH] prune_icache_sb)

2007-03-02 Thread Mike Snitzer
On 12/4/06, Wendy Cheng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Russell Cattelan wrote: > Wendy Cheng wrote: > >> Linux kernel, particularly the VFS layer, is starting to show signs >> of inadequacy as the software components built upon it keep growing. >> I have doubts that it can keep up and handle this com