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

Re: [lvm-devel] [PATCH] (1/2) new library interface for vg_read



On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 16:56 +0100, Petr Rockai wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Dave Wysochanski <dwysocha redhat com> writes:
> > Well, doesn't this cause a bug in this path though for the !consistent
> > case?  First patch drops the consistent variable in this vgremove path,
> > but things like _process_one_vg() do not use the new APIs (which sets
> > the proper error codes) until the second patch.  You mention in your
> > patch intro this first patch should apply and make a completely workable
> > LVM so I'm assuming you mean no bugs.
> Oh, hm, you are apparently right. Interestingly enough, the presumably buggy
> code does pass the testsuite, so something's wrong with the testsuite, I
> suppose. It might be good to have a test triggering that problem. I will
> re-split the patch and resubmit later today.
> 
The other thing I had wondered about was your changing
vg_lock_and_read() significantly (in particular the return value /
handle) but not changing any of the callers until the second patch.  I
have not thought this through but are you confident the existing callers
will be ok without the second patch?



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