From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: M. Mohan Kumar Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 22:58:15 +0530 Subject: [PATCH V2 0/2] Add thin lv and thin pool creation support In-Reply-To: <510BD450.1060801@redhat.com> References: <1359642352-9688-1-git-send-email-mohan@in.ibm.com> <510ADC7B.3090903@redhat.com> <87pq0k1s89.fsf@in.ibm.com> <510BD450.1060801@redhat.com> Message-ID: <87lib80wr4.fsf@in.ibm.com> List-Id: To: lvm-devel@redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tony Asleson writes: > On 02/01/2013 12:08 AM, M. Mohan Kumar wrote: >> Tony Asleson writes: >>> One option would be to change the type to a signed integer and change >>> the meaning from number of blocks free to percentage free and then treat >>> -1 as pick a sane default. Thus 0 would be no events and 30 would >>> indicate when 30% blocks free is remaining to generate an event. We >>> could also use an unsigned value and use 100 as please pick a sane >>> default as this value and values close to it really wouldn't make much >>> sense. >> >> IMHO specifying the % in threshold is a good idea. You suggest to assume some >> default threshold for newly created thin pool if user is not passing >> anything. May be we can document this in lvm2app.h mentioning if '0' >> passed as percentage it will be treated as the default thresold and 100% >> means no event will be generated. What do you think about this policy? > > This would be fine too. As long as we clearly document what the value > represents and what the special values which denote disable and select > default we should be good. > > Do we know what a reasonable threshold value should be? Oops I meant, should we discuss with dm folks about default threshold?