From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S263793AbTLJRmP (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:42:15 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263795AbTLJRmP
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:42:15 -0500
Received: from smithers.nildram.co.uk ([195.112.4.54]:20241 "EHLO
	smithers.nildram.co.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S263793AbTLJRmM (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:42:12 -0500
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:44:18 +0000
From: Joe Thornber <thornber@sistina.com>
To: Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>, Joe Thornber <thornber@sistina.com>,
       Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com>,
       Linux Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Device-mapper submission for 2.4
Message-ID: <20031210174418.GF476@reti>
References: <20031209134551.GG472@reti> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312091206490.1289-100000@logos.cnet> <20031209143412.GI472@reti> <Pine.LNX.4.56.0312092106280.30298@fogarty.jakma.org> <20031209222624.GA6591@reti> <20031210084546.GG3988@suse.de> <Pine.LNX.4.56.0312101726340.1218@fogarty.jakma.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.56.0312101726340.1218@fogarty.jakma.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 05:30:01PM +0000, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 
> > Arguments akin to "But XFS got merged, surely we can to" don't hold
> > up one bit. Should be obvious why.
> 
> Its not about a /new/ feature, its about an existing feature which is 
> incompatible between 2.4 and 2.6.
> 
> I dont really care whether its done via forward or backware compat. 
> (but why was LVM1 removed from 2.6?)

The LVM1 driver was removed because dm covered the same functionality
+ lots more, and is more flexible.  The LVM2 tools still understand
the LVM1 metadata format, so there is no problem about not being able
to read data in 2.6.  The main reason for submitting dm to 2.4 was
that there are a lot of people out there who want to use LVM2/EVMS
tools with 2.4, and kept asking me to do it.  If this is against
Marcelos current policy then so be it; I probably should have checked
with him before spamming lkml with the submission.  I don't want this
to degenerate into the old LVM1 vs dm argument; people can search the
archives for that.

- Joe