Re: kernel inclusion planned?

> > but again: I'm not requesting this, nobody else does, and if you don't 
> > care - why bother? I only thought of it and it does seem easier to 
> > maintain once it's in the kernel.
> 
> I do care. It's just a lot of effort. It's a lot easier not to bother!
> Your prompting can make the difference.

Well, let me jump in on that shortly.
I am one of those who think kernel inclusion would be a desirable thing. My
major reasons are:
1) enbd needs more "eyes". 
Every now and then I set up an enbd-testbed to find out how things are going.
The last one was some weeks ago and it was  - again - not quite successful.
Setup worked as usual quite ok, but the boxes crashed when I stressed the
enbd-raid 1 (with fr)(*). This was not the first time that happened to me,
effectively all former tests ended more or less that way. Up to now I have
only managed to set up one box working quite ok (ok, I do not stress this one,
it is production).
Truely I like enbd, it really has nice features and is exactly what I was
looking for. But unfortunately it does not meet my idea of stability yet.
My hope is that the more people looking at the code the sooner all will work
out well.

2) enbd is closely linked to several parts of the kernel, block devices,
network. Changes in these parts may or may not affect enbd, I guess it is hard
to follow all parts of the story for the maintainer. My hope is that the flow
of (important) information will improve once enbd is a vital part of the
stock kernel.

-- 
Regards,
Stephan

(*) The crash looked like a network problem which is mean because the network
consisted only of a cross-over-cable connected to an e1000 in every box.