On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 09:27:35AM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 22:35, Milan Broz <mbroz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > But if your statement is "it is your broken activation model" as you said > > in some discussion, I can do nothing, just disagree - it is different model, > > not broken. > > Sure, if you are fine with that model, I'm fine with it too. You are > the one sending patches to mangle basic driver-core definitions to > paper-over some issues dm seem to have with it. I just object to such > core changes, not to the way dm is doing things. > > I have no problem with dm creating "dead" devices, it's like this > since a long time, but please don't try to fake things in the driver > core to make it look different from what it is. We don't want /sys and > /dev and events to be out of sync, like non-"add"-ed devices which are > fully created in /sys, or "remove"-d devices which are still fully > populated in /sys. > > /sys is the direct export of kernel objects, if you create objects, > they appear, and they get announced. If you don't want them to be > announced at that time, just don't register them at that time. > > Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking you to change the current state how > dm is doing things, I just object to the patch which inconsistently > tries to fake events, which do not match the state in /sys. Would introducing a KOBJ_READY_TO_BE_CONSUMED_BY_UDEV help? Or re-using KOBJ_ONLINE for that purpose, even though it has different meaning elsewhere? Lars -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
