Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751948AbWJMWWx (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:22:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751951AbWJMWWw (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:22:52 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:52376 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751948AbWJMWWv (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:22:51 -0400 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:22:37 +0100 From: Alasdair G Kergon To: Phillip Susi Cc: Alasdair G Kergon , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Heinz Mauelshagen Subject: Re: dm stripe: Fix bounds Message-ID: <20061013222237.GL17654@agk.surrey.redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Alasdair G Kergon , Phillip Susi , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Heinz Mauelshagen References: <20060316151114.GS4724@agk.surrey.redhat.com> <452DBE11.2000005@cfl.rr.com> <20061012135945.GV17654@agk.surrey.redhat.com> <452E5FD0.8060309@cfl.rr.com> <20061012160515.GD17654@agk.surrey.redhat.com> <452E85ED.1040409@cfl.rr.com> <20061012183529.GF17654@agk.surrey.redhat.com> <452EA9FF.2040602@cfl.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <452EA9FF.2040602@cfl.rr.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1493 Lines: 37 On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 04:47:59PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote: > One stripe table can only contain one stripe size, so to have two would > require two tables, and a third table to tie them back together. One device-mapper table can contain two concatenated stripe targets. http://people.redhat.com/agk/talks/FOSDEM_2005/text6.html > The entire idea of a stripe is that you are using multiple identical > drives ( or partitions ), so it doesn't make any sense to be able to > truncate one of the drives. dmraid is not the only user of device-mapper striping. Userspace volume managers may want to use all sorts of odd layouts quite legitimately. > In any case, this is not something you can > do now, [Actually that's what the code did before this patch:-(] > so the fact that you could not do it then either does not seem > to be a good argument against allowing partial tails. The arguments are (1) to avoid the ambiguity I've discussed and (2) to avoid the additional complexity the in-kernel striped target would require (calculating a stripe size for the end of the device to override the one supplied), when it's so simple for userspace to specify exactly what it requires by using two targets. Alasdair -- agk@redhat.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/