Re: [2.6] Most likely to be merged by Halloween... THE LIST

[Daniel Phillips]

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