If you followed lkml you'll see that I even explain authors of
very small drivers how to fit the kernel standards. The situation
with those is a little different as they are not a framework and
don't add new APIs. Thus it's only a correctness and style issues.
EVMS on the other hand is not only a lot of code but also a framework,
i.e. it folows certain design principles. And I fundamentally
disagree with some of those.
> Some of us have large arrays and SANs where the absence a volume
> manager is a big thing.
Not having EVMS ~= not having a volume manager. I don't want
to have to manage my storage farms without a volume manager either,
but that doesn't have to mean that I like the EVMS design.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/