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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 21:00:29 EST