[OpenAFS] OpenAFS on Linux 2.5.x

[jon+openafs@silicide.dk]

On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 08:57:42AM -0400, Derrick J Brashear wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Jon Bendtsen wrote:

First of all, thank you for taking your time to reply on
all these emails.


> > Why not just work with them if we want openafs included ?
> 
> No argument there, but they declared feature freeze, meaning in theory
> that nothing gets to be done until after 2.6, because what we need would
> be a "feature"

Well depending on how much openafs changes the kernel it might
be included anyway, and beyond that... well i for one would
like to run openafs on the next stable linux kernel, even if
i would have to patch the kernel my self, so the code would
have to be portet anyway.


> > It doesnt work like that. It is Linus's kernel. He makes the stuff
> 
> It doesn't matter if it works like that. You'll note I provided options
> for all the other cases. For completeness, they must also not be willing
> to do this, because otherwise it means we're ignoring an "out" and we
> suck.

I dont understand this. What other cases, what is it we are ignoring?


> > If you want something into the Linux kernel, you would have to work
> > with the kernel people. You have to make changes to your code to fit
> > it into the kernel. Anything else is just arrogant bullshit, you or
> > anyone else has no (god/constitution/law/birth/... (or whatever you
> > believe in) given) right to get your code included.
> 
> I sent a patch. It:

just once? It might be forgotten, it might have a slight problem
with it. Basicaly i would suggest that you stay humble though
keep trying. Sometimes stuff is forgotten and you have to be
persistient.


[cut]

> > Then you USUALY will get it included. Especialy if you make it a
> > compile time option.
> 
> Ok then. So, I played and lost. Do you have a suggestion that works?

Never give up, never surrender ;-D or in other words, keep trying.


> > proposal? This sounds like David didnt show any code. The better code
> > you show, the more likely you are to get it included.
> 
> I understand exactly what he wanted, and I could write the code in less
> time than I'm taking to try to allow you to understand what's up with
> Linux 2.5 and 2.6.

Wow, i'm impressed, it would properly take me months. Anyway i believe
that the kernel folks, as most others, follows "show me the code".
So, actualy having the code would make it less likely to be ignored.


> > Why not start with what is needed to get it working. And then after
> > that make future changes for smart and optimised stuff. (notice how
> > SMP got added, and how many kernel revisions it toke to make it good).
> 
> Because all of my free time ends being consumed by stupid political stuff
> which I have no interest in doing, and in rewriting code that already
> worked most often for the 50 variants of what purport to be the same
> version of the Linux kernel.

Just because it works doesnt mean it cant be made smarter. Suppose
the kernel people didnt change the smp part since 2.0, since it did
just work. Reworking working code can have advantages. And starting
with the KISS approach is a good idea too, then you can later see
how to improve it and make advanced stuff.


> > Please remember that it does take 2 to fight. I'm sure that there is
> 
> Sure. And you'll note I'm not fighting. I got frustrated and walked away.
> If someone else wants or expects to deal, great. If any of the random
> contacts I have pays off in a way that makes OpenAFS supportable in a way
> useful to me on Linux 2.5, I will be willing to work on it. That's a real
> possibility, but until I know what I'm going to have to work with, it's
> premature to write code for it.

Someone has to do the job. I hope your contacts pay off, as i would
like to run afs on the next stable linux kernel, as both has advantages.
(I might even do it myself, as i do have this graduate linux kernel
course where i do have to make a project on the kernel, like a new
driver, or porting something from and older kernel to a newer (the
teacher suggested stackable filesystems (cryptfs)) or my own idea
building in encryption support in LVM2, however, i'm not the best
codeer out there... but i guess this might be a way to learn).


> > ppss: it might be too late to have openafs included into the 2.6/3.0
> > kernel, but that does NOT mean that we shouldnt try. At least the work
> > is not waisted even if it isnt included in 2.5, as i am sure that some
> > users would like to use openafs on the 2.6/3.0 and other future kernels.
> 
> we don't want openafs in the 2.6 kernel. we never asked for it, either.

Maybe not _IN_ the kernel, but i'm sure that we would like to be
able to use linux 2.6 AND openafs on the same machine, meaning
it would have to be portet anyway.



JonB