On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:24:49AM +0530, Sandeep K Sinha wrote: > On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:20 AM, Alasdair G Kergon <agk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:52:08PM +0530, Sandeep K Sinha wrote: > > Because whether or not it makes sense to send any specific ioctl to more > > than one target in parallel depends on what that ioctl does. When we > > added that code we said that we could add hard-coding for specific > > ioctls if the need arose, but so far it hasn't. > No, the philosophy should be that we send the ioctl's to the mapped > device and not to the targets underlying that mapped-device. That's not what the current implementation was for, viz. passing scsi ioctls through dm multipath devices. > And doing so, I should be able to access the complete map that belongs > to that mapped device. If I implement an ioctl of my own and try to > serve it, the problem would be that it would never allow me to serve > it if has more than one target. As I said above, if the need arises we can have a whitelist mechanism for ioctls to be handled differently, but the only safe default behaviour is the one that has been implemented. Alasdair -- agk@xxxxxxxxxx -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
