|Subject:||Re: vfs_altfsid & dm_fsid|
|From:||Aurelien Degremont - Stagiaire <degremont@xxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Fri, 13 May 2005 17:54:54 +0200|
|Cc:||Dean Roehrich <roehrich@xxxxxxx>|
|References:||<20050428021133.A885C4FE57@chewtoy.americas.sgi.com> <4278CDB8.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; fr-FR; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030225|
Let's see if I can get the attachment right....
This looks ok but as you said, it need testing, i can do some of them, but i haven't a huge HSM system with dmapi support to be sure all is ok.
The only problem i'm concerned is about the dm_send_mount_event code.
(It's not a very important problem, just details :-))
You're currently adding more and more stuff to this function. Particularly concerning the filesystem registration code (dmapi_register() removal). I don't like having a function called "Send a mount message" like many others (send_namesp_event, ...) doing a job it isn't intended to do.
I spent some time to understand the dm_send_mount_event() and dm_send_unmount_event() are the functions that registered and unregistered the filesystem.
Moreover, it all these changes are done, the dm_send_mount_event() will have a lot of parameters, and I don't think a code with functions with 11 or 12 parameter is a good code. Maybe something cleaner could be done here...
'dm_register_and_send_mount_event' (like dm_find_fsreg_and_lock ? :)) Not really short but at least, very clear :).
It is seems a good idea to register the filesystem in the same time it is mounted, but this implies a huge and ugly dmapi send mount event function ;)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: SATA RAID5 XFS LVM kernel hang on 2.6.11-1.14_FC3, Eric Sandeen|
|Next by Date:||Re: vfs_altfsid & dm_fsid, Christoph Hellwig|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: vfs_altfsid & dm_fsid, Dean Roehrich|
|Next by Thread:||Re: vfs_altfsid & dm_fsid, Christoph Hellwig|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|