From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: Proposed enhancements to MD Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:10:49 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1074031848.4981.4.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> References: <40033D02.8000207@adaptec.com> <40043C75.6040100@pobox.com> <20040113134107.A7646@lists.us.dell.com> Reply-To: arjanv@redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-CSPhqZAP0rRo10gdZEWm" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20040113134107.A7646@lists.us.dell.com> To: Matt Domsch Cc: Jeff Garzik , Scott Long , Linux Kernel , linux-raid , Neil Brown List-Id: linux-raid.ids --=-CSPhqZAP0rRo10gdZEWm Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Ideally in 2.6 one can use device mapper, but DM hasn't been > incorporated into 2.4 stock, I know it's not in RHEL 3, and I don't > believe it's included in SLES8. Can anyone share thoughts on if a DDF > solution were built on top of DM, that DM could be included in 2.4 > stock, RHEL3, or SLES8? Otherwise, Adaptec will be stuck with two > different solutions anyhow, one for 2.4 (they're proposing enhancing > MD), and DM for 2.6. Well it's either putting DM into 2.4 or forcing some sort of partitioned MD into 2.4. My strong preference would be DM in that cases since it's already in 2.6 and is actually designed for the multiple-superblock-formats case. --=-CSPhqZAP0rRo10gdZEWm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBABGzoxULwo51rQBIRAvB3AJ975gLeupCNmZHRCDZ41DylR+7cWgCgn5/9 5lsgj7bmuCMG+c5VuTD5aC8= =Q7RG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-CSPhqZAP0rRo10gdZEWm--