On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 12:13:56PM -0500, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote: > 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. The global _hash_lock should not be held (thereby locking out most dm ioctl operations on any device) while the slow populate_table() runs. I'm trying out a variant of the patch that drops and reacquires that lock. Alasdair -- agk@xxxxxxxxxx -- dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
