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

Re: [lvm-devel] [PATCH] DRAFT! write lock priority

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 02:54:15PM +0200, Peter Rockai wrote:
> Alasdair G Kergon <agk redhat com> writes:
> > Add a comment to show what the result of this code is.
> > "aux_" is a decent idea for the prefix: any other ideas?
> > Something based on 'waiting' or 'queue'?
> > Best might be a suffix on the existing name, with a separator
> > character that cannot appear in a VG name.
> >    V_vg1:queue
> > Then a sorted 'ls' will list them adacently.
> I have thought about that at first (it was actually easier to implement), but I
> decided against because it feels fragile. So unless you think it's worth it,
> I'd stick with the prefix solution, which is I think quite foolproof.

What is it that feels 'fragile'?

When debugging a problem, listing all the locks with 'ls' (or lsof/grep/sort)
and finding them paired up nicely is a definite advantage.

The namespace for VGs and LVs is well-defined.  (By contrast, the PV namespace
is poorly-defined and still causes problems.)


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