From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:29:22 +0000 From: Alasdair G Kergon Message-ID: <20130125122922.GG3122@agk-dp.fab.redhat.com> References: <20130124155312.GA10563@daedalus.cslab.ece.ntua.gr> <20130124180834.GA3122@agk-dp.fab.redhat.com> <51017F0C.20100@bmsi.com> <20130124234235.GB3122@agk-dp.fab.redhat.com> <20130125084410.GB10563@daedalus.cslab.ece.ntua.gr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130125084410.GB10563@daedalus.cslab.ece.ntua.gr> Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Sparse LVs, --virtualsize equal to --size Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Vangelis Koukis Cc: synnefo-devel@googlegroups.com, LVM general discussion and development On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:44:10AM +0200, Vangelis Koukis wrote: > this seems to fit the bill perfectly, it's a shame it's > not yet merged upstream. One of the reasons the zeroed target is not upstream is because, although we thought it would be useful, we had nobody actually asking to test and use it. If we bring it up-to-date and prepare to merge it upstream, would you test it? Alasdair