In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Lukas Ertl writes: >On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Robert Watson wrote: > >> I think the right strategy is to follow the minimalist approach now >> (adopt the disk(9) API, rather than having Vinum generate character >> devices) so that swap works on Vinum again, and so that when UFS moves >> to speaking GEOM there's no loss of functionality. If we want to >> completely reimplement Vinum, we should do that separately so as to >> avoid loss of functionality during structural changes. > >As many ways lead to Rome, how about the following scenario. I don't know >if it's a clever way to do things, and I don't know if it's even possible >to with GEOM, so some input is appreciated. > >*) Have separate GEOM classes for each of the different vinum objects > (drive, sd, plex, volume). >*) Let the drive geom taste the slices configured for vinum, read the > on-disk config and then spawn the necessary other geoms (I'm not sure > if the latter can be done in GEOM). >*) I think this is a clean implementation, since the GEOM framework offers > all the "background" needed to transform the IO requests. >*) It would also be a good way to clean up the vinum code.
It is possible in GEOM, but I am not convinced that fragmenting into this many GEOM classes can be classified as an easy path to go. I think for now the important thing is to get the people interested on this collected on a mail-alias, and for them to discuss how the can work together to make something happen. After that, try to define "something" closer. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
