Re: [Xen-devel] [OSSTEST PATCH 09/22] LVM: Break out lv_create

On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 19:53 +, Ian Jackson wrote: >  > +sub lv_create () { > +my ($ho, $vg, $lv, $mb) = @_; > +my $lvdev = "/dev/$vg/$lv"; In the original code it was using $gho->{Lvdev}, is this semantic change deliberate or a rebase-o? If the former then I think it warrants a

Re: [Xen-devel] [OSSTEST PATCH 09/22] LVM: Break out lv_create

Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [OSSTEST PATCH 09/22] LVM: Break out lv_create"): > On Wed, 2015-11-11 at 16:30 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > >  There is a minor functional change: $gho->{Lvdev} has been put through > >  lv_dev_mapper.  But we don't care about that in lv_create (since the > >  LVM

Re: [Xen-devel] [OSSTEST PATCH 09/22] LVM: Break out lv_create

On Wed, 2015-11-11 at 16:30 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [OSSTEST PATCH 09/22] LVM: Break out > lv_create"): > > On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 19:53 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > +sub lv_create () { > > > +my ($ho, $vg, $lv, $mb) = @_; > > > +my $lvdev =

Re: [Xen-devel] [OSSTEST PATCH 09/22] LVM: Break out lv_create

Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [OSSTEST PATCH 09/22] LVM: Break out lv_create"): > On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 19:53 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > +sub lv_create () { > > +my ($ho, $vg, $lv, $mb) = @_; > > +my $lvdev = "/dev/$vg/$lv"; > > In the original code it was using $gho->{Lvdev}, is this

[Xen-devel] [OSSTEST PATCH 09/22] LVM: Break out lv_create

We are going to want to reuse this. Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson Signed-off-by: Robert Ho Tested-by: Robert Ho --- v14: New patch v15: Change some trivial typo, so to resolve conflicts with production tree. ---