Hi, Alasdair G Kergon wrote: > This patch needs splitting up so that independent changes can be > considered separately. > > c.f. The proposal from Mike Anderson (repeated below) which I prefer > because it makes it clear that a table always belongs to exactly one md. I like his proposed patch. The interface is useful for my purpose too and moving table creation inside _hash_lock means I don't need dm_get() neither. Is it going to be pushed to upstream? I'll remake my patch based on it. -- Jun'ichi Nomura, NEC Solutions (America), Inc. -- dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
