By Jake Edge
September 15, 2010
One of the outcomes from this year's Linux Storage and Filesystem Summit
was a plan to create a combined tree to help ease the process of
integrating changes to various storage subsystems. At the summit, James
Bottomley "volunteered" himself
to put the tree together, and that came to fruition with his announcement of the tree on
September 10. Paralleling the discussion at the summit, there is still the
lingering belief that more than just an automatically generated tree may be
needed.
The tree currently collects patches from several subsystem trees, scsi,
libata, and block, along with patches from the dm quilt repository. It is
being automatically pulled and built nightly, much like linux-next. It
will also be rebased daily against the mainline which will make it somewhat
harder for kernel hackers to use—also like linux-next. Because
of that, Dave Chinner didn't really see the storage-tree as being all that
useful: "I really don't see a tree like this getting
wide use - if I enjoyed the pain of rebasing against throw-away
merge trees every day, then I'd already be using linux-next."
Bottomley acknowledged that complaint,
noting that using linux-next had been suggested at the summit, but pointed
out that the storage-tree is a much smaller target than linux-next: "The diffs to mainline in the current storage tree are still
under a megabyte." Bottomley also noted that the summit
participants were a bit skeptical that a tree without a "storage
maintainer" to oversee it (a la Dave Miller's networking tree) might not
prove to solve the problem, which was
one of Chinner's concerns as well.
But there are political considerations too. "Unlike net, storage has never had a single
maintainer, so it's a bit more political than just doing that by
fiat", Bottomley said. Chinner was of the opinion that the summit
is the obvious place to have made a decision to appoint a storage
maintainer, even if all of the current maintainers of the storage
subsystems were not present. But its clear that those who were present
wanted to move slowly, as Bottomley described:
This sort of thing doesn't get decided by fiat. If you can't get all of
the relevant parties to agree, you have to demonstrate the need. So
doing a rollup tree to test how much of the problem is solvable that way
seems like a reasonable first step.
The tree is available at
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/storage-tree.
The nightly diffs from the mainline and log of the pull script are available
as well. It is likely to take a bit of time to see if the storage-tree
solves the problem with integration of cross-storage-subsystem changes, but
it does
provide a good starting point.
(
Log in to post comments)