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

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining



Daniel Phillips <phillips istop com> wrote:
>
> If the only user is their tools I would say let it go ahead and be cute, even 
>  sickeningly so.  It is not supposed to be a general dlm api, at least that is 
>  my understanding.  It is just supposed to be an interface for their tools.  
>  Of course it would help to know exactly how those tools use it.

Well I'm not saying "don't do this".   I'm saying "eww" and "why?".

If there is already a richer interface into all this code (such as a
syscall one) and it's feasible to migrate the open() tricksies to that API
in the future if it all comes unstuck then OK.  That's why I asked (thus
far unsuccessfully):

   Are you saying that the posix-file lookalike interface provides
   access to part of the functionality, but there are other APIs which are
   used to access the rest of the functionality?  If so, what is that
   interface, and why cannot that interface offer access to 100% of the
   functionality, thus making the posix-file tricks unnecessary?


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