On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:04:21AM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: > On Mon, Mar 05 2012 at 5:21am -0500, > Joe Thornber <thornber@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Mike, > > > > My concerns are: > > > > i) The current behaviour is upstream; by changing this aren't you > > making the tools writers life more complicated rather than less by > > making them support both interfaces? > > It is an incremental improvement. Allows the kernel to be forgiving. > How does this impact some tool that took the special care to limit the > size of the device to METADATA_DEV_MAX_SECTORS (which is < 16G)? You're making this change to make life easier for tool writers, yet tool writers still have to support the existing 3.2 kernel and deal with the 16G limit. > Whatever the tools may be doing is not my concern. Ideally the users > and tool authors understand that 16G is insane for thinp metadata. But > in the event that they use 16G would you rather we reject them? Yes, I would rather reject, than let people think they had 32G of metadata. It also forces the tool writers to do something sane. I don't feel strongly enough about this to keep arguing. So consider this an ACK and see if you can get it past Alasdair. - Joe -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
