On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 10:44:06PM +0200, Martin Wilck wrote: > On Mon, 2018-10-01 at 22:09 +0200, Martin Wilck wrote: > > > > I like the lock removal a lot, but not so much the conversion into a > > string. Why not keep the dev_t? > > > > Or maybe even easier, the other way around: why don't we make it a > > char* and simply set checker->dev_t = &pp->dev_t? > > OK, that 2nd one won't work because pp may be destroyed before the > checker terminates. Got it. Still I'd prefer keeping a dev_t in the > checker structure rather than a char[32]. Why? We never do anything with it as a dev_t except change it into a string. If you feel strongly about this, I don't really care, and I'll change it. I just don't understand your objection. -Ben > > Martin > -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
