Mike, On 6/9/17 21:03, Mike Snitzer wrote: > I've switched from .presuspend to .postsuspend, and eliminated the > .presuspend_undo > > I'm not seeing any reason for .presuspend_undo > > See dm-cache-target.c for a .postsuspend that is pretty comparable to > what dm-zoned's is doing. > > As for .presuspend_undo, dm-thinp has a need for it but most target do > not. And I'm not seeing why dm-zoned needs it. Thanks for the pointer. I looked at dm-thin for examples, but that was not the best one. I will study all these methods more. > I've pushed to linux-dm.git's 'for-next' to get more test coverage; > doesn't mean that I consider dm-zoned's review complete. Thank you. Let me know if you see anything not satisfying. I will keep testing on my side to make sure there are no obvious problems remaining. We are also finishing a set of test case for blktests for the dm zoned block device series. Will be submitting that soon. Best regards. -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
