[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

[Cluster-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/4 Revised] NLM - lock failover



Arjan, I need an objective opinion and am wondering whether you could give me some advices ...

I'm quite upset about this Christoph guy and really want to "talk back". Will my response be too strong that ends up harm my later on patches ?

-- Wendy

Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 10:11:13PM -0400, Wendy Cheng wrote:
> However, since this particular NLM patch set is only part of the overall
> scaffolding code to allow NFS V3 server fail over before NFS V4 is
> widely adopted and stabilized, I'm wondering whether we should drag
> ourselves too far for something that will be replaced soon.

I don't think that's a valid argument.  We hack this up because it's
going to be obsolete mid-term never was a really good argument.  And in
this case it's a particularly bad one.  People won't rush to NFSv4 just
because someone declares it stable now.  And if they did we couldn't
simply rip out existing functionality.


The "hack" and "bad" are very subjective words in this context. Comparing to many other code currently living inside Linux kernel tree, this patch set, gone thru 3 rounds of extensive review and discussions, deserves at least "average" standing in terms of solution, quality and testing efforts.

On the other hand, I certainly welcome further constructive suggestions and ideas though.

-- Wendy




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]