[OpenAFS] OpenAFS on Linux 2.5.x

jon+openafs@silicide.dk jon+openafs@silicide.dk
Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:40:53 +0200


On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 06:05:08AM -0400, Derrick J Brashear wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 jon+openafs@silicide.dk wrote:

> > I dont understand this. What other cases, what is it we are ignoring?
> 
> We aren't ignoring anything. There were a list of 4 "bullet points". This
> was the last.

okay, that didnt make it any much clearer, but never mind that.


> > 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.
> 
> You missed the importance of "50 variants of what purport to be the same
> version of the Linux kernel."

Just make it for the default linus kernel then. It shouldnt be hard
to avoid conflicts with other stuff, or doubling their work.

 
> > Someone has to do the job. I hope your contacts pay off, as i would
> 
> Right. And all I'm saying is, you can like my attitude or not, but nothing
> says the person who interfaces with linux kernel people has to be me;
> Nobody's falling over themselves to do it, though.

no, but it would have to be someone smart :)
And you did sort of make it sound like it would be futile even
to try.


> > > 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.
> 
> Yes. But the distinction is important.

True keeping it a patch/module that can be loaded would allow
us to change more stuff in the kernel to get openafs to work,
but is that a good thing? We might end up doing more work as
the internal kernel stuff might change in the future, and besides
i feel that being in the kernel gives extra credability, which
i would prefer, since then more people would use AFS.




JonB