Maybe Jonathan Brassow could shed some light on this :) Since the documentation says the uuid is optional should this failure check be modified to a log warning in the "_alloc_thread_status()" function? Brian Wood Intel Corporation Digital Enterprise Group Manageability & Platform Software Division brian.j.wood@xxxxxxxxx >-----Original Message----- >From: dm-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dm-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On >Behalf Of Alasdair G Kergon >Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 10:14 AM >To: device-mapper development >Subject: Re: Question about dmevents > >On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 09:57:28AM -0700, Wood, Brian J wrote: >> Hi Alasdair, I also read in the definition of DM_DEV_CREATE that the >> uuid is optional. Since that is the case shouldn't the failure for not >> having a uuid in "_alloc_thread_status()" be taken out? > >I don't know this code, but in general userspace code should use uuid if it >is >present. If it isn't, it should fall back to using the name. Whether that >leads to sensible behaviour in this particular case, I don't know. If it >doesn't then it should be documented that uuid is a requirement. > >Alasdair >-- >agk@xxxxxxxxxx > >-- >dm-devel mailing list >dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx >https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
