From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265861AbTLIOSn (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:18:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265864AbTLIOSm (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:18:42 -0500 Received: from intra.cyclades.com ([64.186.161.6]:47781 "EHLO intra.cyclades.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265861AbTLIOSj (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:18:39 -0500 Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 12:10:06 -0200 (BRST) From: Marcelo Tosatti X-X-Sender: marcelo@logos.cnet To: Joe Thornber Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , Linux Mailing List Subject: Re: Device-mapper submission for 2.4 In-Reply-To: <20031209134551.GG472@reti> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Cyclades-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-Cyclades-MailScanner: Found to be clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Joe Thornber wrote: > On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 11:15:08AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > I believe 2.6 is the right place for the device mapper. > > So what's the difference between a new filesystem like XFS and a new > device driver like dm ? Expected question... XFS is a totally different filesystem from the ones present in 2.4. As far as I know, we already have the similar functionality in 2.4 with LVM. Device mapper provides the same functionality but in a much cleaner way. Is that right?