Re: the "cluster" system call (and file system type)

["J . A . Magallon" <jamagallon@able.es>]

On 20010715 Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
>irbis@orcero.org writes:
>
>>>>  Better focused, something like a /proc filesystem. :-)
>>>
>>> Part of the objection to including mosix as-is into the kernel
>>> is all the mucking it does in /proc.  This point was made
>>> early on by very possibly Alan himself.   So by mounting
>
>I think I've heard Alexander Viro and Linus Torvalds both
>complaining about /proc. One of them called it a dumping ground.
>
>>  Well, if this is the only one problem, let it be in "/cluster". ;-)
>...
>>  All the subsystems lay on "/proc". I can not understand why clusters
>> subsistems should be different. I thing that the best is finnaly
>> integrating clustering into the kernel, and that Linux became a
>

I think what people hate is polluting /proc in separate subtrees, like putting
things in /proc/sys/net/cluster, /proc/cpu/cluster, etc.
I thing thigs can be done in an transparent way defining a fake clusterfs,
with things like cluter_add_entry etc. that (by now) just call they equivalents
in proc_xxx, rooted at /proc/cluster. If sometine you have to move the tree,
well, just clone the proc_xxx functions to a new independent tree.

-- 
J.A. Magallon                           #  Let the source be with you...        
mailto:jamagallon@able.es
Mandrake Linux release 8.1 (Cooker) for i586
Linux werewolf 2.4.6-ac3 #1 SMP Sun Jul 15 01:23:01 CEST 2001 i686

Linux-cluster: generic cluster infrastructure for Linux
Archive:       http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-cluster/