On Thu, Aug 29 2013 at 1:07pm -0400, Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2013, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 29 2013 at 10:37am -0400, > > Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > As I said - I think it would be better to remove the immutable flag than > > > to create more flags to bypass it. > > > > Immutable was introduced to prevent dangerous scenarios that weren't > > accounted for in original design, etc. It solved your crash when you > > rep;aced a thin-pool with an empty table. > > > > immutable is staying for now. And as it turns out allowing error target > > to override an immutable target was always held to be a logical/possible > > future relaxation of the immutable constraint. > > > > Mike > > If you can replace a thin-pool target with an error target - so why can't > you replace a thin-pool target with linear (or any other) target? > > I don't see why the error target should be special. error target gives us the ability to disconnect the thin-pool from the underlying devices. It is practical for testing, etc. What use-case are you saying will be valid to switch a thin-pool target to linear? -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
