[lvm-devel] [PATCH] DRAFT! write lock priority
Alasdair G Kergon
agk at redhat.com
Thu Aug 13 20:46:06 UTC 2009
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 02:54:15PM +0200, Peter Rockai wrote:
> Alasdair G Kergon <agk at redhat.com> writes:
> > Add a comment to show what the result of this code is.
> > "aux_" is a decent idea for the prefix: any other ideas?
> > Something based on 'waiting' or 'queue'?
> > Best might be a suffix on the existing name, with a separator
> > character that cannot appear in a VG name.
> > V_vg1:queue
> > Then a sorted 'ls' will list them adacently.
> I have thought about that at first (it was actually easier to implement), but I
> decided against because it feels fragile. So unless you think it's worth it,
> I'd stick with the prefix solution, which is I think quite foolproof.
What is it that feels 'fragile'?
When debugging a problem, listing all the locks with 'ls' (or lsof/grep/sort)
and finding them paired up nicely is a definite advantage.
The namespace for VGs and LVs is well-defined. (By contrast, the PV namespace
is poorly-defined and still causes problems.)
Alasdair
More information about the lvm-devel
mailing list