[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

RE: [dm-devel] Question about dmevents



Maybe Jonathan Brassow could shed some light on this :)

Since the documentation says the uuid is optional should this failure
check be modified to a log warning in the "_alloc_thread_status()"
function?


Brian Wood
Intel Corporation 
Digital Enterprise Group
Manageability & Platform Software Division
brian j wood intel com

>-----Original Message-----
>From: dm-devel-bounces redhat com [mailto:dm-devel-bounces redhat com]
On
>Behalf Of Alasdair G Kergon
>Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 10:14 AM
>To: device-mapper development
>Subject: Re: [dm-devel] Question about dmevents
>
>On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 09:57:28AM -0700, Wood, Brian J wrote:
>> Hi Alasdair, I also read in the definition of DM_DEV_CREATE that the
>> uuid is optional. Since that is the case shouldn't the failure for
not
>> having a uuid in "_alloc_thread_status()" be taken out?
>
>I don't know this code, but in general userspace code should use uuid
if it
>is
>present.  If it isn't, it should fall back to using the name.  Whether
that
>leads to sensible behaviour in this particular case, I don't know.  If
it
>doesn't then it should be documented that uuid is a requirement.
>
>Alasdair
>--
>agk redhat com
>
>--
>dm-devel mailing list
>dm-devel redhat com
>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]