On Fri, 19 Aug 2011, Mike Snitzer wrote: > On Thu, Aug 18 2011 at 6:31pm -0400, > Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This all sounds good; get the locking interface in and I'll switch to > > > bufio straight away. > > > > > > - Joe > > > > I uploaded bufio-based block manager at > > http://people.redhat.com/mpatocka/patches/kernel/dm-thinp-bufio/. It > > supports locks, but it defines new functions down_write_non_owner and > > up_write_non_owner. > > dm-bufio.patch: > drivers/md/Kconfig needs a more comprehensive description for DM_BUFIO's > help. There is intentionally no description. If there is no description, this option won't appear in "make menuconfig" menu. dm-bufio is selected automatically when some module that needs it is configured. There is no need to select dm-bufio manually. > dm-thinp-bufio.patch: > 1) > This drivers/md/persistent-data/dm-block-manager.h change avoids lots of > block manager interface churn: > > -struct dm_block; > +#define dm_block dm_buffer > +#define dm_block_manager dm_bufio_client > > But I think it'd be best, in the long run, to have a follow-on patch > that does away with the aliases and just use the bufio structs > throughout the code. Anyway, don't need to worry about this now. But > what you've done is hack that should probably be cleaned up. This way, it's easy to swap the original block manager and dm-bufio. If I changed the names throughout the whole dm-thinp code, it would conflict with any changes Joe may do. Mikulas -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
