On 01/13/2011 12:06 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Urgh... gees, so there actually was a user using all that cruft. > Sorry about the breakage, I'll see how multiple symlinks can be > restored. I'm curious why this was added at all tho. What was the > rationalization? It's not like two subsystems can share the same > block device so marking the currently owning subsystem should have > been enough at the block layer. There is no reason for block devices > to present information which is of no use to itself. All that's > necessary is "this is taken by dm or md for more information, query > those". dm and md need their own conf/representation layer anyway. I am not sure if I understand it correctly, but multiple holders/slaves links are very useful in userspace to present device dependences. We just implemented lsblk command in util-linux which simple prints tree according to these links, so dependendes of DM/MD/whatever devices can be printed without using any system specific callbacks, just using sysfs. See http://karelzak.blogspot.com/2010/12/lsblk8.html Whatever changes are needed, please keep this functionality, it can be useful. Thanks, Milan -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
