Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v3 0/4] dm-replicator: introduce new remote replication target

[James Bottomley <James Bottomley HansenPartnership com>]

On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 18:18 +0100, Heinz Mauelshagen wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 17:41 +0100, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> > On 2009-12-01T17:05:03, heinzm redhat com wrote: 
> > > Please review for upstream inclusion.
> > 
> > Should this not be Cc'ed to LKML if you aim for upstream inclusion? I
> > actually would expect that most of the criticism of drbd's inclusion
> > would also apply here, no? (With the added point that dm-replicator does
> > not actually have any users yet.)
> 
> We have a series of patches to sort out basic issues on dm-devel.
> The usual process is, that agk as the subsystem maintainer integrates
> and upstreams it.

Could I just echo Lars' statement.  With the upstream inclusion of drbd,
dm-replicator becomes a *third* replication system asking to be in
kernel.  It is definitely a kernel policy question of whether we want
three separate replicators, and so should be Cc'd to lkml so that people
interested in that can weigh in.

James