On 9/1/20 11:07 PM, David Teigland wrote: > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 05:09:23PM +0800, heming.zhao wrote: >> 'broken' is acceptable and good word. >> I'm only afraid end user don't know there is a new string item for lvs. >> like me, I just know the lv_health_status string item from Zdenek's mail. (sorry for my stupid) > > I also like Zdenek's "usable", which seems to be closer to what we mean. > In addition to the reporting field can could be a new letter in the 9th lv > attr field. (We'd have to figure out the priority of this letter vs the > others.) > to add 9th (U)sable for the common case? I think it will overwrite (p)artial when top layer LV non-usable. otherwise there may have no chance to show this new letter. Zdenek ever said, He worried about compatibility issues. He preferred to add 'lv_usable' option, not new letter in 9th bit. >> I prefer lvm report status from the entire LV side. >> lvm provides virtual blocks to upper layer softwares, most of softwares use whole virtual disk. > > Limit this to what lvm knows already. The field will represent whether > lvm believes the uppser layer can successfully do io to the entire LV. > agree > Dave > _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
