Re: RFC: backporting GEOM to the 4.x branch

[Ivan Voras <ivoras@xxxxxx>]

Matthew Dillon wrote:

>     I don't have any plans to backport GEOM.  We have plans to create a 
>     more generic device and vfs infrastructure, which is similar, but 
>     we have no plans to backport the actual GEOM code.

Uhh. I'm not involved in the project enough to "start preaching" but 
please try make it API compatible with GEOM! I personally like the 
features GEOM provides very much, and it would be a serious waste of 
resources not to have all the GEOM modules ("classes") already written 
for FreeBSD working in DragonFly. New GEOM utilities and classes are 
written daily and have large amounts of usefull functionality already 
developed.