On Monday 22 July 2002 18:57, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 16:22, Daniel Phillips wrote:developed equivalent
> > Supposing both device-mapper and (the kernel part of) EVMS get into the tree,
> > there's nothing stopping you from submitting a patch to make EVMS use
> > device-mapper. If there's already equivalent code in EVMS, that just makes
> > the job easier.
>
> So we end up with twice as much code to debug and lots of
> incompatibilities when people want to switch around.
If that were a problem, Linux would only have one filesystem.
> It would be far
> better if the two sets of userspace code could at least agree on a
> common kernel interface
Oh, absolutely.
> > I'm firmly in the 'we need both' camp.
>
> If there is something important in only one then that matters. If there
> are important features in each that are not in the other then that
> really proves they should merge the projects
I dunno about that. There's more of interest in a subsystem than just what
features it has. Relying only on what I've seen in this thread, it would
seem natural for EVMS to depend on device-mapper - but why is it necessary
to force the issue immediately, beyond hashing out a suitable interface?
-- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 23 2002 - 22:00:39 EST