[OpenAFS] oAFS & Arla

[Mike Fedyk]

Jimmy Engelbrecht wrote:

>Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com> writes:
>
>  
>
>>Why doesn't OpenAFS merge with Arla?
>>    
>>
>
>Both products have big benefits.
>
>- Arla has some cool stuff like fs getstatistics that you will never see in
>  openafs.
>  
>
Why not, is it racy?

>- Arla has a cool adaptive mechanism that decides which replica to use.
>  
>
Like the replica with the fastest response, or lowest hop count or what?

>- The OpenAFS client is completly written in the kernel, which is not only
>  scary but also hard to port to new plattforms, it also limits the ammount
>  of coll features you want to implement.
>  
>
Ahh, no wonder the Linux Kernel people don't like OpenAFS much...

>- OpenAFS is ported to far more plattforms.
>- The OpenAFS people do a lot of binray releases.
>
>I work on both projects. I see no benefits with a merge at this time.
>
>  
>
>>It is said arla has a stable client, and 2.6 support without syscall
>>table hacks.
>>    
>>
>
>What you mean is that you dont need to patch your kernel when you run arla
>on current 2.6 kernels. There is still an ugly hack inside the arlacode to
>hook the syscalltable, so that you dont need to care where your OS-vendor
>is hiding the syscalltable this week.
>
>But we try to find another sollution.
>  
>
So the LK guys removed the export of syscall_table, what mechanism did 
they replace it with?

I saw something about a hook for NFS.  Is it not generic enough?

>  
>
>>Are the BSD and IPL licenses compatible?
>>    
>>
>
>We can in most cases, and we copy some code from each other.
>
>  
>
>> That way, you could pick and
>>choose the parts from arla you want,
>>    
>>
>
>well, thats what most people do.
>
>  
>
>>and split on file boundaries.
>>    
>>
>
>what do you mean ?
>  
>
If the licenses aren't mixable in a single file, maybe they're link 
mixable.  BSD in one file, IPL in another...

>  
>
>> If
>>not then BSD (without the advertising clause) is supposedly compatible
>>with just about anything.  So could it be "transformed" into IPL
>>licensed code?
>>    
>>
>
>Thats how i interpret it, but i am not a lawyer and dont care that much
>either.
>
>  
>
>>How production ready is their client (especially the Linux kernel module)?
>>    
>>
>
>Linux and the BSD's is fine.
>  
>
Linux is what I'm concerned with.

BTW, where did the AFS code in vanilla kernel.org 2.6 come from?