From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jan 13 14:16:34 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: geom@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7806E1065670
	for <geom@freebsd.org>; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:16:34 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from luigi@onelab2.iet.unipi.it)
Received: from onelab2.iet.unipi.it (onelab2.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.129])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C2F38FC1A
	for <geom@freebsd.org>; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:16:34 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from luigi@onelab2.iet.unipi.it)
Received: by onelab2.iet.unipi.it (Postfix, from userid 275)
	id 0C2C57309E; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:21:43 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:21:43 +0100
From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>
To: geom@freebsd.org, Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>
Message-ID: <20090113142143.GA92704@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
References: <20090113122111.GA89189@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090113122111.GA89189@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Cc: 
Subject: Re: geom 'taste' vs. manual creation ?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations
	<freebsd-geom.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-geom>,
	<mailto:freebsd-geom-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-geom>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-geom@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-geom-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-geom>,
	<mailto:freebsd-geom-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:16:34 -0000

Ivan Voras said:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 01:21:11PM +0100, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > geom(4) says:
> > 
> >    A geom which came into being as a result of a normal taste operation
> >    should self-destruct...
> > 
> > Now I wonder:
> > does the GEOM infrastructure record whether a geom has been created
> > by a 'taste' call, or manually through a 'geom xxx create ..', or
> > this info should be managed directly by the individual implementation ?
> 
> I'm not sure if this is what you're asking, but when a new geom is
> created (for example by a complex / transformation GEOM class...), it is
> automatically tested again, so why would it be different now?

i am looking at the module unloading (i.e.. destroy) case.
I have a geom_sched module that uses the 'taste' method to automatically
create instances to selected devices (listed in a kenv variable for
what matters). The user can still manually issue "geom sched create ..."
on other providers.

When I unload the module, right now i call destroy() on all instances
(including those created manually), but i wonder if the autodestruction
should be limited to only the auto-created entities, as the manpage
seems to suggest, and in this case whether there is any flag that
records manual vs. automatic creation.

	cheers
	luigi