The most complicated part in rommer's patch is LVM snapshot. If snapshot support is not a must, then adding CLVM is simple as RBD.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 1:33 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: re-implement clvm > > Ok, so I've created a refactored patch that seems to work. It was > pretty much entirely the RBD additions that were blocking the original > from being rolled back in. If a developer would be willing to take on > the whole license issue and see this functionality put back in I'd > still be willing to pay half of the bounty ($400). As the code looks, > the changes are fairly minor, and I'm not sure how novel you'd have to > get avoid the license issues (or that there's any easy alternative way > to change the code sufficiently) > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:12 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 07/31/2012 09:48 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote: > >>> > >>> I'd be happy to try more if I had access to any contact info. As > it > >>> is, things in the surrounding code have changed enough that a bit > of > >>> re-factoring would need to be done even if there were permission. > >>> > >>> My hunch is that unless he's switched roles, once the new version > is > >>> released he may come out of the woodwork wondering why that thing > he > >>> has a need for and developed is gone. > >> > >> > >> After writing the last RBD implementation this CLVM seems trivial. > >> > >> A lot of code is still in there and looking at the commit where it > got > >> removed it wont be that much work. > >> > >> The problem (and I'm not a licensing expert) is that if I would > implement > >> CLVM again it would look a lot like the original code, do we have to > refer > >> to the old author for that? > >> > >> I'm assuming here that we won't be able to contact the original > author, but > >> we want to keep the CLVM functionality for 4.0. > >> > >> Wido > > > > > > Actually - you should compare the original patches, with what was > reverted. : > > http://bugs.cloudstack.org/browse/CS-10317 > > > > There was already something of a rewrite when Edison changed how some > > of the storage was handled (which is the iteration that was pulled). > > > > IANAL either, so I won't bother to even try and answer that question. > > > > --David
