David Teigland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We export our full dlm API through read/write/poll on a misc device.
inotify did that for a while, but we ended up going with a straight syscall
interface.
How fat is the dlm interface? ie: how many syscalls would it take?
-
To unsubscribe from this
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:54:08AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
David Teigland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We export our full dlm API through read/write/poll on a misc device.
inotify did that for a while, but we ended up going with a straight syscall
interface.
How fat is the dlm
David Teigland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:54:08AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
David Teigland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We export our full dlm API through read/write/poll on a misc device.
inotify did that for a while, but we ended up going with a straight
On Monday 05 September 2005 05:19, Andrew Morton wrote:
David Teigland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:54:08AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
David Teigland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We export our full dlm API through read/write/poll on a misc device.
inotify did
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 02:19:48AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
David Teigland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Four functions:
create_lockspace()
release_lockspace()
lock()
unlock()
Neat. I'd be inclined to make them syscalls then. I don't suppose anyone
is likely to object if we
On Sad, 2005-09-03 at 21:46 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Actually I think it's rather sick. Taking O_NONBLOCK and making it a
lock-manager trylock because they're kinda-sorta-similar-sounding? Spare
me. O_NONBLOCK means open this file in nonblocking mode, not attempt to
acquire a clustered
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 05:24:33PM +0800, David Teigland wrote:
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:54:08AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
David Teigland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We export our full dlm API through read/write/poll on a misc device.
inotify did that for a while, but we ended
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Llu, 2005-09-05 at 02:19 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
create_lockspace()
release_lockspace()
lock()
unlock()
Neat. I'd be inclined to make them syscalls then. I don't suppose anyone
is likely to object if we reserve those
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Llu, 2005-09-05 at 12:53 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
- How are they ref counted
- What are the cleanup semantics
- How do I pass a lock between processes (AF_UNIX sockets wont work now)
- How do I poll on a lock coming free.
- What
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:46:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Actually I think it's rather sick. Taking O_NONBLOCK and making it a
lock-manager trylock because they're kinda-sorta-similar-sounding? Spare
me. O_NONBLOCK means open this file in nonblocking mode, not attempt to
acquire a
On Sunday 04 September 2005 00:46, Andrew Morton wrote:
Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The model you came up with for dlmfs is beyond cute, it's downright
clever.
Actually I think it's rather sick. Taking O_NONBLOCK and making it a
lock-manager trylock because they're
Mark Fasheh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:46:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Actually I think it's rather sick. Taking O_NONBLOCK and making it a
lock-manager trylock because they're kinda-sorta-similar-sounding? Spare
me. O_NONBLOCK means open this file in
Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the only user is their tools I would say let it go ahead and be cute, even
sickeningly so. It is not supposed to be a general dlm api, at least that
is
my understanding. It is just supposed to be an interface for their tools.
Of course it
Mark Fasheh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:23:43AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
What would be an acceptable replacement? I admit that O_NONBLOCK -
trylock
is a bit unfortunate, but really it just needs a bit to express that -
nobody over here cares what it's
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 01:18:05AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
I thought I stated this in my other email. We're not intending
to extend dlmfs.
Famous last words ;)
Heh, of course :-)
I don't buy the general fs is nice because we can script it argument,
really. You can just
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 02:18:36AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
take-and-drop-lock -d domainxxx -l lock1 -e do stuff
Ahh, but then you have to have lots of scripts somewhere in
path, or do massive inline scripts. especially if you want to take
another lock in there somewhere.
takelock domainxxx lock1
do sutff
droplock domainxxx lock1
When someone kills the shell, the lock is leaked, becuase droplock isn't
called.
Why not open the lock resource (or the lock space) instead of
individual locks as file? It then looks like this:
open lock space
On Sunday 04 September 2005 03:28, Andrew Morton wrote:
If there is already a richer interface into all this code (such as a
syscall one) and it's feasible to migrate the open() tricksies to that API
in the future if it all comes unstuck then OK. That's why I asked (thus
far unsuccessfully):
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 02:42:36AM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Friday 02 September 2005 20:16, Mark Fasheh wrote:
As far as userspace dlm apis go, dlmfs already abstracts away a large part
of the dlm interaction...
Dumb question, why can't you use sysfs for this instead of rolling
On Saturday 03 September 2005 02:46, Wim Coekaerts wrote:
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 02:42:36AM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Friday 02 September 2005 20:16, Mark Fasheh wrote:
As far as userspace dlm apis go, dlmfs already abstracts away a large
part of the dlm interaction...
Dumb
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 06:21:26PM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
that fit the configfs-nee-sysfs model? If it does, the payoff will be about
500 lines saved.
I'm still awaiting your merge of ext3 and reiserfs, because you
can save probably 500 lines having a filesystem that can create
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 06:32:41PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
If there's duplicated code in there then we should seek to either make the
code multi-purpose or place the common or reusable parts into a library
somewhere.
Regarding sysfs and configfs, that's a whole 'nother
On Saturday 03 September 2005 23:06, Joel Becker wrote:
dlmfs is *tiny*. The VFS interface is less than his claimed 500
lines of savings.
It is 640 lines.
The few VFS callbacks do nothing but call DLM
functions. You'd have to replace this VFS glue with sysfs glue, and
probably save very
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:22:36AM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
It is 640 lines.
It's 450 without comments and blank lines. Please, don't tell
me that comments to help understanding are bloat.
I said configfs in the email to which you are replying.
To wit:
Daniel Phillips said:
On Sunday 04 September 2005 00:30, Joel Becker wrote:
You asked why dlmfs can't go into sysfs, and I responded.
And you got me! In the heat of the moment I overlooked the fact that you and
Greg haven't agreed to the merge yet ;-)
Clearly, I ought to have asked why dlmfs can't be done by
Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The model you came up with for dlmfs is beyond cute, it's downright clever.
Actually I think it's rather sick. Taking O_NONBLOCK and making it a
lock-manager trylock because they're kinda-sorta-similar-sounding? Spare
me. O_NONBLOCK means open this
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:46:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
It would be much better to do something which explicitly and directly
expresses what you're trying to do rather than this strange lets do this
because the names sound the same thing.
So, you'd like a new flag name? That
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:51:10AM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Clearly, I ought to have asked why dlmfs can't be done by configfs. It is
the
same paradigm: drive the kernel logic from user-initiated vfs methods. You
already have nearly all the right methods in nearly all the right
On Sunday 04 September 2005 01:00, Joel Becker wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:51:10AM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Clearly, I ought to have asked why dlmfs can't be done by configfs. It
is the same paradigm: drive the kernel logic from user-initiated vfs
methods. You already have
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 01:52:29AM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
You do have -release and -make_item/group.
-release is like kobject release. It's a free callback, not a
callback from close.
If I may hand you a more substantive argument: you don't support user-driven
creation of
-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 04:28:30PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
That's GFS. The submission is about a GFS2 that's
on-disk incompatible
to GFS.
Just like say reiserfs3 and reiserfs4 or ext and ext2 or
ext2 and ext3
then. I think the main point still
31 matches
Mail list logo
